











/ 

























\ 








I 


« 













J 

THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


Reasons Why the United States Should Join 
Other Nations to Bring Universal Peace 
and Avoid the Wickedness and 
Expense of War 


BY 

ANDREW J. PALM 
Author of “The Death Penalty” 


“From time immemorial men have dreamed of per- 
manent peace; poets have sung it; philosophers 
have written about it; statesmen have discussed it; 
men everywhere have hoped and prayed that the 
day might come when tears would he unnecessary 
in the settlement of international differences” 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS COMPANY 

MEADVILLE, PA. 




'h 


."Po-a? 




To my daughter, Ada, 
a good and faithful teacher, a warm friend of 
the League of Nations, and one to whose 
help and good wishes I am indebted, 
this book is affectionately 
dedicated. 



os 



Copyright, 1924, 

by 

LEAGUE OF NATIONS COMPANY, 
Meadville, Pa. 




4 






/ 








« 






♦ « 


4 


\ 







THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


PREFACE 


It has been said that no one reads a preface. While this 
is an exaggeration, it is true that many readers pay no atten¬ 
tion to the introduction. Part of this indifference may be 
ascribed to the writers. In many cases a careful reading of the 
preface fails to give any idea as to whether the writer is familiar 
with his subject or is merely waiting something which he hopes 
to sell. The author should have a proper regard for the dictates 
of modesty, but the reader has a right to know whether the 
writer understands his subject, is conscientious in what he says, 
and has the public good as well as his own in view. 

The present writer does not feel that he is boasting when 
he says that he has been a member of a peace society for many 
years and has taken a conscientious part in its proceedings. He 
is opposed to war as the greatest evil that afflicts the world, 
always wrong on one side, and very often on both sides. He 
had a book published some years ago, one chapter of which was 
devoted to war. Peace advocates pronounced it a strong and 
truthful arraignment of war, while those who believe in force 
thought it a bitter and unwarranted attack on military men 
I mention this to show that I am not a novice who was first op¬ 
posed to war when the League of Nations was offered to the 
world. 

Within the memory of the writer hopes have been raised 
more than once among peace advocates that the world was 




2 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


coming to its senses and that the scripture which says that swords 
shall be beaten into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks 
was about to be fulfilled. Every movement that looked like peace 
has been strangled by the military of some nation, and but for 
the propaganda carried on in every so-called civilized nation 
for war under the guise of fear, and in the name of patriotism, 
the world would long ago have been on a peace basis. 

The last great movement for universal peace resulted from 
the misery, bloodshed, debt, general depravity and hopelessness 
caused by the last great war, which would have ended war for¬ 
ever had it not been for the preparation that still goes on under 
the guise of self defense. The vast destruction of life, property 
and morals brought many to their senses who were indifferent, 
and the feeling that war is too cruel and expensive to live longer 
is perhaps too strong to be overcome. For the first time a ma¬ 
jority of foreign nations have been forced to the conclusion that 
they must depend on peace rather than war if they are to exist. 
The women are against it and the churches, led by their min¬ 
isters, have come to believe that religion and war are not com¬ 
patible and they must cease war if the church is to live and 
grow. That those who profit by money or what has been glory 
are engaged in a country-wide propaganda to keep war alive, 
hideous as it is, is evident to all who keep informed of current 
events. 

Like all who are earnest in the peace movement, I am in 
favor of anything and everything that will aid in putting the 
world on a peace basis. I am for the disarmament of nations, 
for the World Court, for declaring war an outlaw, for Mr. Bok’s 
prize of $100,000, for the educational movement to abolish war, 
started by the educators of the world, and for the League of 
Nations. I am especially for the League for several reasons, 
some of which I shall give. I am for the League— 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


3 


1. Because it is the plan of the world as shown by the 
treaties of more than fifty nations. 

2. Because it is the strongest movement looking toward uni¬ 
versal peace and includes several methods. 

3. Because it already has a court before which all inter¬ 
national grievances may be brought for peaceable, just and eco¬ 
nomical settlement. 

4. Because the best and ablest men and women think a 
League of Nations is the only thing to prevent wars and put the 
world on a peace basis. 

5. Because all other agencies and methods that have been 
tried for centuries have failed to prevent war, though the best 
men and women of the world united in the effort. 

6. Because all nations have the same rights and should be 
members of a common league, and not leave a few on the out¬ 
side to be a source of danger to those who are members. 

7. Because it is universally admitted that humanity is a 
higher and better term than patriotism. While patriotism is a 
praiseworthy feeling to be encouraged, it should never be used 
to the detriment of humanity. Right and wrong, truth and 
falsehood are the same in all countries. The League of Nations, 
like the church, stands for humanity. 

8. The United States should be a member of the League 
because we claim to be a peaceable nation; because our late 
President said that war is abhorrent to the world; because we 
should set a worthy example and prove by our actions that we 
are for peace; because we took an active part in the World War 
to show that we wanted the right to prevail and w*e are under 
the same obligation to take part in peace; because the League 
passed both houses of Congress and was strongly favored by 
the best men and women of the country; because we are needed 
by the League and it will not function properly without us. 

In offering this book to the public the writer claims no 


4 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


superior knowledge of the subjects discussed. He may have 
some advantages for information denied the average reader, and 
has perhaps spent more time in considering the subject than 
can be given by some who may be equally interested. About one- 
third of this book is devoted to giving the opinions of men and 
women, eminent not only in their own localities, but many of 
them known throughout the world. This will add greatly to the 
value of the book, as the opinions of many are better than that 
of one on any subject. Those who want to know the chief rea¬ 
sons why the United States should become a member of the 
League of Nations will do well to read this book. 

If this book is thought to be inconsistent in referring to 
Mr. Harding as President it should be remembered that some 
of it was written while he lived and was not changed. 

ANDREW J. PALM. 


Meadville, Pa., February, 1924. 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


CHAPTER I. 

Self Interest Should Suggest the League. 

"War is one of the most ferocious and futile of human 
follies. It never decides who is right but only which is the 
stronger.” _ —John Hay. 

“We all of us agree, and a very large part of the world 
agrees, that there ought to be an end to war; that it is 
brutal, wasteful and stupid. We have been talking about 
it for a great many years. The volume of sound has 
swelled and grown into a great chorus of universal ac¬ 
claim for the principles of peace with justice.” 

—Elihu Root. 

My object in giving these quotations is two-fold. They show 
that war is foolish, wicked and useless so far as justice is con¬ 
cerned, and that the world wants it abolished. In addition both 
men were prominent members of the party that has opposed 
the League of Nations. Mr. Hay, by common consent, was one 
of the ablest men the country has produced. He excelled as an 
editor, a statesman and an author, and his opinion of war is 
that of every one who has given the subject a moment’s thought. 
Mr. Root is regarded as one of the ablest attorneys of the world, 
apd has been called to fill many places of responsibility by his 
party and was mainly instrumental in establishing the Hague 
Court. He used the quotation given in a speech when chairman 
of the Carnegie Peace Foundation. 

It has been said that no one is allowed to choose his duties, 
implying that they are forced upon us, and that we are the 
instruments by which they are to be performed or neglected. 


6 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


There is no doubt that St. Paul, who has been called “the great 
teacher,” spoke the truth 2000 years ago when he said that no* 
man liveth to himself, and it is just as true that no nation can 
live in isolation and selfishness and prosper. The greater the 
number affected and the more important the good to be done, the 
greater is our responsibility to act in accordance with intelligent 
judgment. 

Every citizen owes it to himself and to the world to have an 
intelligent opinion on the League of Nations, a subject that con¬ 
cerns every thinking human being now on earth or who may 
come hereafter. As has been said by at least two men who were 
thought to have the learning, ability and integrity to fit them 
for the highest judicial position in the United States, this is by 
far the most important question the American people were ever 
called to consider, and is above all questions of political partisan¬ 
ship. 

The author presents nothing new when he says that peace 
is better than war, for this is regarded as self-evident by all 
right-minded readers. Even the veriest war lord knows that 
the world should get along without the evils of war, but it takes 
time for the majority to get rid of the impression that neces¬ 
sity compels us to accept an admitted evil because it is old, 
rather than something new which judgment tells us is far better. 
We have both money and ambition to overcome, two great evils 
when they are put to evil use. They have been used as curses 
of the world in all ages, and they must accept the responsibility 
for war’s extending so far into civilization. 

Imaginary fear of those who should be helpful friends, 
rather than armed foes, is made the excuse for large military 
appropriations, which, in turn, inflame the war-like passions of 
other nations and make war rather than peace the basis on which 
the world acts. Repetition is said to enforce truth and by re¬ 
peating the truth again and again the majority may finally come 


SELF INTEREST SHOULD SUGGEST THE LEAGUE 7 

to feel that it should be adopted and war relegated to the un¬ 
worthy dead of a more barbarous age. 

The best paid general will readily admit that peace is better 
than war, that war is unchristian, but he claims that peace with¬ 
out war is impossible. The world wants peace but is obliged 
to accept war, for, as the military men say, wars have always 
existed and always will exist. They seem to forget that exactly 
the same thing was said of slavery and duelling which were 
thought to be permanently fastened on society because they had 
always been a part of it, but their abolition was easy When the 
people decided they should go. There is a far better reason why 
Christians should stop cutting one another’s throats than there 
was for abolishing duelling. 

No matter what nations may be engaged in it, war is a 
stranger to every dictate of humanity. The President, in his 
speech to the Washington Conference, expressed the thought 
that wars should grow less cruel as we become more highly civil¬ 
ized, though he admits that they grow worse. The sixty-two 
page pamphlet detailing the horrible German outrages, signed 
by seven prominent Englishmen, the declaration of the English 
soldiers that running the Boers through with spears was excel¬ 
lent fun, which they called pig sticking; the excoriation of the 
American general, Jake Smith, in Congress, for extreme cruelty 
to Filipino soldiers and for his order to kill all over ten in a 
certain district on the ground that “nits make lice,’’ ought to 
convince the most optimistic reader that General Sherman was 
right when he declared in burning Atlanta that “ war is cruelty 
and cannot be refined,” or his better known saying that war 
“is hell.” Neither is war any better if carried on by those who 
call themselves the followers of the lowly Nazarene. 

If peace is not better than war, our religion is a mistake and 
we do violence to our faith when we speak of it as founded on 


8 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


the teaching of the Prince of Peace. If peace is better than 
war—if it is a vital part of our religion and no true religion 
can exist without it—there is but one thing that should prevent 
our having it, and that is that it is impossible. Before we can 
say it is impossible we must give it a fair trial, something it has 
never had and never will have as long as more propaganda is 
carried on for war than for peace. 

It matters but little how strong a man may be for peace, 
if he is appointed Secretary of the Navy or of War he usually 
becomes more or less warlike and favors large appropriations 
for his department. Men in these positions are dealing princi¬ 
pally with admirals or generals who know far more about war 
than the man at the head of their department. The men with 
whom the Secretary has to deal know practically only of war 
and talk but little else and their example is contagious. As a 
rule the Secretary takes the word of the man who assumes to 
know all about it, and if told that the government needs a few 
dreadnaughts to make an adequate navy, or a few thousand 
soldiers, or a few hundred airplanes to form an adequate army, 
the Secretary goes before the congressional committee and rec¬ 
ommends what the warriors advocate. 

The President, as head of the army and navy has a host of 
generals, admirals and rear admirals, the war college, the Secre¬ 
taries of the Army and Navy, the navy board, the war board and 
the jingoes in Congress and out telling him how weak and un¬ 
prepared we are, until he comes to believe it. It is perhaps not 
strange that he sometimes forgets his religion, his duty and his 
peace principles and yields to their importunities. He should 
not forget that there are others aside from the handful that have 
been after him; he should recollect that neither in time of peace 
nor war have the army and navy been anything near adequate in 
the opinion of military men. 


SELF interest should suggest the LEAGUE 9 

Man is a selfish creature, and one would think his self- 
interest would lead him to favor peace instead of war, even if 
his love of humanity was not sufficient reason for such a choice. 
The average man is a timid being as well as selfish, scenting 
danger where there is none, and he is slow to change his mind. 
The man of war, through generations of effort, has so impressed 
many men of their danger that they think with the German 
Kaiser that we must have an adequate army and navy to save 
us from those who may be better than ourselves. The cry now 
is that we are in danger of war from those who are sick of it 
and have agreed that hereafter they will settle international dis¬ 
putes by a civil court constituted for the purpose. 

Individual habits are hard to break, but w'hen the govern¬ 
ment gets into a way of doing things the way is likely to last long 
after the need has disappeared. For example, Walter H. Page, 
who was Ambassador to England under President Wilson, says 
that during Defoe ’s time, two hundred years ago, a pot of herbs 
was put on every court desk in England to keep the plague away. 
This would be strange enough even in Defoe’s time, but when 
Mr. Page says that a pot of herbs is still kept on the desk of 
every court room in England we begin to see that the human 
being is slow to change even for what is cheaper and more 
sensible. 

Mr. Page also mentions the Bank of England as showing 
Merrie England’s aversion to making changes. Many years 
ago an attempt was made to rob the Bank and a detachment of 
soldiers was ordered to stand watch at night. Though the Bank 
has been moved twice and is now housed in a building that would 
stand a siege, Mr. Page says that a guard in the same colored 
uniform as that which originally stood watch is kept every night. 

I could match it with stories showing that Americans are 
nearly as much inclined to let things go as they have been going. 


10 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


Nearly every member of the American House of Lords once took 
snuff. It was one man’s duty to see that the snuff boxes were 
properly cleaned and filled every morning when the Senate was 
in session. This was kept up until comparatively recently. 
Though the number of snuff takers gradually diminished until 
but one was left, the boxes were religiously kept in order for the 
entire number. 

An illustration of the inclination of the English-speaking 
people to stick to the old because it is old is the Metric system 
of measurements. Though originated by the English inventor, 
James Watt, in 1786, and is as much simpler than the systems 
in use as dimes and dollars is simpler than pounds and pence, 
it is said that England and the United States are the only civil¬ 
ized nations that have not adopted it. 

What is advocated by the League of Nations is the most 
valuable public thing ever offered to man, and though it is free, 
some hesitate to accept it. All that is expected of any one is to 
think. One of our most noted reformers says that the hardest 
part of any reform is to get men to think. If men will think 
earnestly and conscientiously they will arrive at pretty nearly 
the same conclusion, especially if they have the same interest, 
and everyone has the same interest in the peace of the world 
for it concerns the men, women and children of every country. 

The United States is the only great country that does not 
belong to the League of Nations. Though we boast of being a 
nation of peace, culture and religion, though we are infinitely 
better prepared by location, tradition, reputation and resources 
than any other to take the lead among the nations for the world’s 
peace, yet we lag behind and allow others to outstrip us in the 
greatest cause that nations were x ever called to settle. It is a 
shame and disgrace that our rulers, who ought to lead public 


SELF INTEREST SHOULD SUGGEST THE LEAGUE II 

. \ 

sentiment in every good cause, should act in what concerns us 
and the whole world, only as they are forced by public opinion. 
Other nations have the impression, which they have doubtless 
acquired from our conduct, that we consider ourselves too good, 
or too great, or too proud to join them in an attempt to do away 
with war and the preparation for it. 

The good men and women of the world are more in favor 
of freedom from war than they ever were before; they are now 
more fully convinced that the League of Nations is the only 
thing that will put an end to war. They see that now is the time 
to act when the desire for peace burns in hearts all over the 
world. The sentiment for peace is so strong that the war lords 
in Congress and out can no longer fool the rank and file by ap¬ 
propriating big sums to the army and navy in time of peace, 
and then set up the war scare as an excuse for their action as 
they have been doing for centuries. Over three hundred and 
twenty-five millions to the navy, and as much to the army, at 
a time when not a war cloud the size of a man’s hand is in sight, 
is more than the people will stand, if they have any power to 
think. All they need is to think—to think that this enormous 
sum, most of which might have been saved, is to be a burden on 
us and our children after us. With nearly all the nations on 
earth saying they want no more war, with Germany no longer a 
bugbear to frighten the timid, there is no longer any reason, if 
there ever was one, for keeping the military in the saddle. 

The time has come for plain speaking, when those who be¬ 
lieve in peace will take the first and best opportunity to secure 
it. They are fully convinced that it will never come by taking 
the advice of those who talk for peace and prepare for war. 
We would be in bloody war now only for the reason that there 
is no nation so foolish as to engage with us in a brutal contest. 


12 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


Our military men do not want us to remain long without some 
excuse for war, thinking that we will become what we profess 
to be, a nation that practices what it preaches. 

In the court of brute force the victor is judge and jury and 
fixes the verdict to please himself, no matter how unjust. When 
two individuals disagree no one needs to be told that neither 
should be allowed to fix the terms of settlement. When two 
eorporations differ as to what is right, it would be considered 
preposterous to allow either to fix the verdict. When two na¬ 
tions disagree there is infinitely more reason why a tribunal of 
distinguished men from other nations should fix the award than 
in the case of two corporations. It is comparatively easy for 
either a corporation or a nation to agree to the decision Of an 
impartial judge, but a condition most likely to result in war when 
the disagreement occurs between nations. The rulers of one 
nation, through self interest or some other reason, insist that they 
are right and the others wrong. Unless somebody backs down, 
or some power intervenes, the result is war. 

The folly, uncertainty and expense of war settlements have 
been demonstrated so often that any nation would better swal¬ 
low some of its pride and accept almost any verdict in a court of 
justice. Five years have elapsed since the greatest war in all 
history closed and a final settlement has not yet been made, nor 
does any one know when it will be made. France suffered 
severely, spending more ifi four years of war than she had spent 
for peaceable government in a century, to say nothing of her loss 
in men, and her moral loss which was beyond estimation. France 
claims that Germany could pay, if she would, and is attempting 
to collect by the threat of military force, which is a most ex¬ 
pensive way of getting money, expensive alike both for the payer 
and payee. Germany claims that she has paid nearly $11,000,- 
000,000, while France insists that she has not received one-third 
of this amount. An American firm has made what is perhaps as 


SELF INTEREST SHOULD SUGGEST THE LEAGUE 13 

fair a statement as can be made of the situation, and finds that 
Germany has paid $5,188,000,000 in money, goods and property 
of different kinds. This firm after a long, careful and impartial 
investigation says that Germany cannot pay more at present, 
and *wbether she can in the future depends on circumstances over 
which she has no control. The full report may be regarded as 
the fairest and most complete statement made of the unpleasant 
situation. It needs no proof to say that the civilized world is 
suffering from the situation between France and Germany. 

For many years the war feeling between these two nations 
has been at the breaking point, and both should have learned 
long ago that force never pays financially, morally nor any other 
way. There is more sympathy for Germany than there would 
otherwise have been had any nation set a proper example, but 
England, France, the United States, Italy and all the countries 
that make any pretensions, were vying with Germany in the mat¬ 
ter of armies and navies. They all insisted on an adequate army 
and navy, and adequate in a military man’s mind means second 
to none. If France, Germany and all the other nations would 
get rid of their men of war, the peace men would have no trouble 
in arriving at a sensible settlement. 

The contest affects many more than France and Germany. 
As the two nations did not fight the contest alone, so all inter¬ 
ested should have a voice in the settlement. The newspapers 
naturally take sides, some for France and others for Germany, 
but it should be clear to any reasonable man that neither should 
say what the other shall do. While Germany made war for a 
very flimsy excuse and ought to pay for what she destroyed as 
far as possible, yet we should not expect any nation, Whether 
defeated or victorious to perform impossibilities, nor should we 
permit one nation to say what another shall or shall not do. The 
only kind of a verdict any individual or nation can conscientious¬ 
ly sanction is one rendered by an international court having 


14 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


justice for all in view. There is much good sense in what 
Josephus Daniels, Secretary of the Navy under President Wilson, 
says in the Raleigh News and Observer, when he declares: 

“I am for a new reparations commission, upon which the 
United States should have a voting member and not merely an 
observer, to give a thorough examination of Germany's offer and 
make careful analysis of it and point out what would be accom¬ 
plished by its acceptance and wherein it should be amended. 

“The thirty billion gold marks is equivalent to something 
like seven billion dollars, or three billions less than the minimum 
of the amount of reparations President Wilson thought Germany 
was able to pay in 1919. This is not a matter solely for Germany 
on the one side and France and Belgium on the other. It con¬ 
cerns all the nations that were engaged in the World War. 
If the nations to pay and the nations to receive can not agree, 
the other nations should offer their good offices to adjust the 
differences with guarantees that would give lasting European 
peace. That is more important than a few billion marks more 
or less/' 

The fight between France and Germany, which has lasted 
many months, is the most serious trouble in the world today. 
It is but the natural result of a war feeling between the two 
nations of many years standing, so long that the oldest inhabi¬ 
tant cannot remember when it began. As a result both nations 
have exhausted their resources in being prepared to meet the 
other in battle array whenever the war lords might decide that 
glory or the acquisition of money or territory demanded a war. 
The most active jingo will hardly claim that the bad situation 
in Europe, especially between France and Germany, is not due 
to war. Will he not further acknowledge that no such conditions 
were ever made by peace ? Would not both France and Germany 
have been infinitely better off if they had accepted the advice of 
the Prophet Isaiah made more than twenty-five centuries ago, 
and beaten their swords into plowshares and their spears into 
pruning hooks and learned war no more? 


SELF INTEREST SHOULD SUGGEST THE LEAGUE 15 

It is questionable whether both countries are not bankrupt, 
-whether either can pay its national debts. A writer who has 
been a banker and a member of a university faculty is on record 
as saying that France in 1914 owed more than the United States, 
Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Roumania, Serbia, Norway and 
Sweden combined, though less in size than Texas. According to 
the same authority France owed twice as much per capita as 
Great Britain, five times as much as Turkey, six times as much 
as Russia, ten times as much as Germany, and fifteen times as 
much as the United States. France, on what seems to be reliable 
authority, is this year spending about 45,000,000,000 francs and 
raising about 22,000,000,000, and yet has the largest army of 
any civilized country on the globe. 

All the gold in Germany would pay the interest on the 
reparations demanded but one week. All she can hope to pay 
must be in goods, as all national debts £.re paid, but would the 
United States or England, or any other country, see its own 
industries demoralized to take art undue proportion of German 
goods ? These are some of the results of war. Who will say that 
peace is not desirable, and a League of Nations not necessary? 


CHAPTER II. 


Why We Are Not a Member of the League. 

“He that may hinder mischief and yet permits it is 
an accessory.” —Freeman. 

Most men do not realize to what extent they are controlled 
by the political party to which they are said to belong and to 
which most of them do belong body and soul. If the old political 
parties would change platforms the adherents of the respective 
parties would reason themselves into thinking that a great 
change had taken place and imagine it their duty to stick to 
the party name regardless of the principles advocated. As has 
been well said, a platform is to get in on rather than to ride on. 
Though it is clearly shown at the close of this chapter that the 
people were overwhelmingly for the League of Nations, it was 
defeated because of partisan politics, the people standing for a 
name instead of a reality which they really wanted and had 
been advocating for years. Though it has been more than one 
hundred and twenty-five years since Alexander Hamilton used 
the following languaage, truer words have never been spoken: 

4 ‘Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had 
no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned 
by those whom they dislike. But if they have been consulted 
and have happened to disapprove, opposition then becomes, in 
their estimation an indispensable duty of self-love. They seem 
to think themselves bound in honor, and by all the motives of 
personal infallibility, to defeat the success of what has been 
resolved upon contrary to their sentiments. Men of upright, 
benevolent tempers have too many opportunities of remarking 
with horror to what desperate lengths this disposition is some- 


WHY WE ARE NOT A MEMBER OF THE LEAGUE 


17 


times carried, ana now often the great interests of society are 
sacrificed to the vanity, to the conceit, and to the obstinacy of 
individuals, who have credit enough to make their passions and 
their caprices interesting to mankind.’’ 

Never did Hamilton’s words have a better illustration than 
was afforded by the League of Nations. Many of the most in¬ 
telligent Republicans of the country were heartily in sympathy 
with the object of the League, and for years had wanted only 
the opportunity to express themselves in favor of abolishing 
war; yet when the opportunity finally came they were induced 
by party leaders to oppose their life-long convictions. It was 
a plain case. On one side was the leader who declared himself 
in favor of the League; on the other was a leader who advocated 
something different and gave his political word that his “pig 
in the poke’’ would be better, though he admitted that he had 
never seen it and did not know much about it. The United 
States has been kept aloof from other nations, not from merit 
but partisan politics, ancf every intelligent man and woman 
knows it. 

Unfortunately, men who have been influential, men who 
realized the enormity of war, have somehow felt that party fealty 
is the strongest tie that binds a man to his fellows—stronger 
than the dictates of reason and humanity. It will be noticed 
that strong men of the old political parties derided war only 
when they could do so in a non-partisan capacity. We never 
heard of the leaders of any strong party saying that as we are 
a peaceable nation, favorably located to take the lead, we ought 
to set a proper example for the 'world; nor did we ever know 
the leaders of either of the old parties to go before Congress to 
discourage the appropriation of money to be spent for war. In 
fact, the men who dressed in uniforms decorated with epaulets 
and gold tinsel had things pretty much their own way at Wash- 


18 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


ington and national capitals generally. The military seem to 
have taken the lead in fashionable balls and a social event with¬ 
out several of these gentlemen present would have been con¬ 
sidered a failure. Their word must have been accepted at par 
in the financial world because the expert for the government 
tells us more than 80 percent of the money spent by the people 
goes for war in some form, and President Harding repeated 
the information in one of (his speeches. 

It is well known that ex-President Wilson was very active 
in having the world adopt some plan by which all nations might 
settle their disputes without the expense and cruelties of war, 
something that had been the dream of good men and women in 
all ages. Though the great war had well-nigh wrecked the civil¬ 
ized world morally and financially, national jealousy was 
not entirely dead and had to be overcome, though all nations 
were sick of war. As it was generally conceded that the entry 
of the United 'States into the struggle had turned the tide in 
favor of the allies, its President naturally had great influence. 
In company with the ablest men of the world he devised the 
League of Nations Which all might join and which was sure to 
abolish war if lived up to in good faith. . 

It was hardly possible that the nations would agree to all 
the necessary provisions of the League, but it was the best that 
could be devised by the ablest and best men of the world. All 
federations are supposed to renounce certain rights to gain others 
more important, and the League of Nations is no exception. It 
was understood that some nations would be obliged to give up 
certain things and to accept others that they might not like, 
but they were a unit on one subject: they had had enough war 
and wanted it to cease forever. They were anxious to be re¬ 
lieved of what had become a great burden both in time of peace 
and war, and would welcome the time when both small and 


WHY WE ARE NOT A MEMBER OF THE LEAGUE 19 

great should feel an interest in keeping the peace of the world. 
Sensible men and women could not understand that if twenty 
nations could fight shoulder to shoulder why any numiber of 
-times twenty could not live on earth peaceably under an agree¬ 
ment. They felt that the time had come when the weak had noth¬ 
ing to fear from the strong. 

Everybody was in favor of the League of Nations. At first 
there was hardly a peep against it from any source, the wonder 
being that the world had so long blundered along in the expen¬ 
sive and barbarous way. The smell of blood was still on their 
garments and the thought of death and destruction too fresh 
in mind for any one to think of anything but peace. Even Ger¬ 
many, which had been the most war-like nation in the world, 
the nation that was used as an excuse for other nations to pre¬ 
pare for war, had enough of her own game and was willing 
to accept peace at any conceivable price. It took most of the 
world to humble her, prepared as she was for the work of blood 
and destruction, but she had her fill of war and was glad to 
quit what she evidently began with the idea of making military 
force supreme for all time. Never before have we had such an 
opportunity of asking our sister nations to join with us to abol¬ 
ish w T ar as we had at the close of the last bloody conflict. 

President Wilson had reason to believe from leading papers 
and from what prominent individuals had said that this country 
was anxiously waiting for some such document as the League 
of Nations. It will be remembered that the New York Sun, 
one of the most radical Republican papers in the country, said 
of President Wilsons fourteen points when they appeared: 

“Every such sincere statement brings us nearer the peace 
of victory; not a victory of destruction or dismemberment or 
racial disaster to Teuton peoples, but a victory over the militar¬ 
istic autocracy and the selfish dynasties which America and her 
allies are making their business to put out of business. We 


20 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


commend the admirable precision with which President Wilson 
has presented principles which the allies regard as essential 
to permanent peace.” 

The New York Tribune, -another strong party paper, fairly 
slopped over in an editorial entitled ‘ ‘ beyond praise, ’’ regarding 
the fourteen points. It said: “In a deep sense Mr. Wilson’s 
words constitute a second emancipation proclamation. As Lin¬ 
coln freed the slaves of the South a half century ago, Mr. Wilson 
now pledges his country for the liberation of the Beguin and 
the Pole, the Serb and the Roumanian. For the long-suffering 
populations of Alsace-Lorraine and Italia irredenta the words of 
the President of the United States are a promise of freedom 
after a slavery a thousand times worse than that of the negro. 
In the real sense Mr. Wilson is leading the people on what may 
be the last crusade.” 

The Republican state convention, held at Saratoga on the 
19th of July, 1918, adopted a platform which contained the 
following resolution: “We favor the immediate creation by 
the United States and its allies of a League of Nations to 
establish, and from time to time to modify, and enforce the rules 
of law and international conduct. The purpose of this League 
should be, not to displace loyalty to national ideals and tradi¬ 
tions, but rather to give to these new opportunities of expression 
in cooperation with the other liberty loving nations of the world. 
To membership in the League any nations may be admitted that 
possess a responsible government which will abide by the rules of 
law and equity and by those principles of international justice 
and morality which are accepted by civilized people.” It is 
doubtful whether any state convention would refuse to pass such 
a resolution before the crack of the party whip. It is equally 
doubtful whether any body would pass such a one after knowing 
that the party holding the convention was against it. 


WHY WE ARE NOT A MEMBER OF THE LEAGUE 21 

There was much of this kind of talk by papers of all political 
colors during the war, and a great deal of favorable talk from 
men and women of all parties regarding the President. In fact, 
politics entered but slightly into active operations during the 
war. People were too busy furnishing soldiers and supplies to 
think of anything else. The revival of the Chinese “stink pots'’ 
in the form of gas, the caterpillar engines for human destruc¬ 
tion, under-seas destroyers, air ships, burrowing under the earth, 
and other new methods of defense and destruction kept the 
average man busy without thinking much of politics. In select¬ 
ing the men to take charge of various departments President 
Wilson took the man who he felt was most capable, whether 
he was Democrat or Republican. This helped to keep partisan 
feeling down. This good feeling lasted for some time after the 
war was over and President Wilson had reason to expect that 
his home Senate would be quick to ratify any reasonable treaty 
he might bring, looking to a permanent peace. 

Ex-President Roosevelt, who had a large personal following, 
said in speaking of a League of Nations.: “Arbitration treaties 
of the existing type and the present Hague conventions have 
proved to be worth no more than the paper on which they are 
written. The aim can be accomplished only by a world League 
which will guarantee to enforce by the combined strength of all 
the nations the decrees of an imperial court martial against any 
offender.” Carrie Chapman Catt, long President of the Woman’s 
Suffrage Association, said: “Unquestionably the League of Na¬ 
tions is the most important question in national politics to 
woman/’ Only a few days ago Mrs. Catt said to a Chicago 
audience: “Four feasible proposals for ending war have been 
made in the last several hundred years and all of them were 
made by America.” One of these proposals is the League of 
Nations, which she described as “an American idea w T hich is a 


22 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


going concern with fifty-four nations in it doing their best to- 
end war.” 

As has been said, to avoid the unspeakable cruelties of war 
and save billions of treasure have been the desire of the best men 
and women of the world for centuries. It has been our boast 
that the United States is the foremost nation for religion, peace 
and everything good; and never before was such an opportunity 
afforded for showing that our goodness is not mere pretension. 
All nations had suffered a loss in life, in treasure and in morals 
which will last not only during our lifetime, but of which our 
children’s children will not see the end. Horrible as the last 
w*ar was, another will be still more devilish if possible. No 
matter how much of the Christian spirit military men may pro¬ 
fess, they are inclined to think that the world can learn nothing 
in the way of settling national disputes; that nations can adjust 
their differences only by force and fear, as they have done for 
hundreds of years. President Wilson found that the hardest 
thing to overcome was the feeling in favor of war that still 
exists in nations that are inclined to listen to their warriors in¬ 
stead of their statesmen. He succeeded, however, in being main¬ 
ly instrumental in offering the world the League of Nations, the 
first attempt ever made with any hope of bringing the good time 
when nation shall no longer war against nation. 

To the surprise and disgust of all true friends of peace, this 
boasted land was the only civilized nation to trample on the 
work of the President and his able associates as unworthy of 
either endorsement or modification. Though it had the hearty 
commendation of the best men and women of the country; 
though it had the endorsement of thirty large church organiza¬ 
tions and a majority of both houses of Congress; though it had 
the signatures of all the leading nations of the earth, it lacked 
the favor of a few partisan leaders who hated the President 


WHY WE ARE NOT A MEMBER OF THE LEAGUE 23 

and who feared that he and his party were likely to get credit 
lor the League, if it became law in the United States. The 
handful w'ho were running the party machine defeated the 
League for no other reason. Ex-President Taft, one of the 
ablest and most enthusiastic supporters of the League, insisted 
that it needed no amendment, and they do not tell the truth 
when they say that it had to be taken without amendment or 
not at all. Senator Hitchcock had charge of the League and 
offered to accept the four amendments which its adversaries 
claimed it needed to adapt it to the United States, but they 
called it Wilsons League and decided that it should not have 
the votes of two-thirds of the Senators. As one of the most 
prominent of them said, it was rejection and not interpretation 
that they desired. One of them who claims to be a one hundred 
per cent peace man said, he would not accept the League of 
Nations if offered by the Savior of mankind. Of course it was 
much easier to reject what was offered by the President of a 
political party with which he was not affiliated. 

It was called Wilson’s League simply to engender party 
spirit, for those who started the cry were politicians and not 
statesmen. Those who ought to control in matters of such im¬ 
portance as the peace of the world ought to know that some plan 
is urgently needed to abolish war and settle the disputes of 
nations in a civilized manner. They know or ought to know 
that abolishing the cruelties and expense of war was thought 
most desirable and necessary long before the time of Woodrow 
Wilson, and that anything he or his country might do to help 
bring about a long-needed and necessary reform deserved the 
earnest support of every man and woman who pretends to be¬ 
lieve that killing innocent persons either by retail or wholesale 
is a crime, call it by what name you may. 

Col. Jean Fabry was an officer in the French army in the 


24 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


World War, losing a leg. At the close of the war he became 
managing editor of an evening newspaper of Paris and later 
was elected Deputy for Paris, and is regarded as authority on 
all military matters. In a recent article to the New York 
Herald he says: 

“When one citizen kills another it is called assassination, 
but when hundreds of thousands of fighters rush at hundreds 
of thousands of others that is called war, and it is always for 
envy, with the object of appropriating the goods of a neighbor/ ’ 

He calls war one of the most odious of crimes. 

That Wilson was only trying to help a cause that good men 
and women have hoped for for centuries past is evident to all 
who are informed on one of the greatest subjects that can inter¬ 
est a human being. The great German philosopher, Kant, re¬ 
garded war as fit only for barbarians. The Brussels Congress 
in 1848 resolved: 

“ That the speedy convocation of a congress of nations, com¬ 
posed of duly appointed representatives, for the purpose of 
framing a well-digested and authoritative international code, is 
of the greatest importance, inasmuch as the organization of such 
a body and the unanimous adoption of such a code would be on 
other occasions an effectual means of promoting universal peace.’' 

The same year Arnold Rudge offered the following resolu¬ 
tion in the German Parliament at Frankfort: 

“We therefore recognize the necessity of calling into exist¬ 
ence a congress of nations for the purpose of effecting a general 
disarmament of Europe.” 

In 1849 a member of the French National Assembly offered 
the following resolution: 

“The French Republic proposes to the Governments and 
representative assemblies of the different States of Europe, 
America, and other civilized countries to unite, by their repre¬ 
sentatives, in a congress which shall have for its object a propor- 


WHY WE ARE NOT A MEMBER OF THE LEAGUE 25 

tional disarmament among the powers and abolition of war, and 
a substitution for the barbarous usage an arbitral jurisdiction, 
of which the said congress shall immediately fulfil the functions. ’’ 

Tn the late forties Richard Cobden, a member of the English 
Parliament, offered the following resolution; 

“That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, 
praying that she shall be graciously pleased to direct her prin¬ 
cipal secretary of state for foreign affairs to enter into communi¬ 
cation with foreign powers inviting them to concur in treaties 
binding the respective parties, in the event of future misunder¬ 
standings which can not be arranged by amicable negotiation, 
to refer the matter in dispute to the decision of arbitrators.’ ’ 

In 1849 Mr. Tuck of Pennsylvania, a member of the Na¬ 
tional House of Representatives, offered the following resolution: 

“That the Committee on Foreign Affairs be directed to in¬ 
quire into the expediency of authorizing a correspondence to be 
opened by the Secretary of State with foreign Governments on 
the subject of procuring treaty stipulations for the reference of 
all future disputes to a friendly arbitration, or for the establish¬ 
ment. instead thereof of a congress of nations to determine inter¬ 
national law and settle international disputes.” 

The same good spirit prompted the later Hague conferences 
and the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Later still came the efforts 
of William Jennings Bryan and Elihu Root, popular in their 
respective parties and no doubt fully convinced that war is 
criminal, and ought to be replaced by something more in har¬ 
mony with civilization. 

Still later, in March, 1916, Mr. Campbell of Kansas, who 
was several times honored by being sent to the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives, offered a joint resolution providing for the establish¬ 
ment of an international federation which should settle all dif¬ 
ferences by a court instead of by war. It is but proper to say 
that Mr. Campbell’s resolution for the federation of the world 
was very similar to a portion of the constitution of the United 


26 


THE LEAGUE OF NATfONS 


States, simply being changed to apply to a world federation in¬ 
stead of an agreement of States of the Union. It was at a time 
when the war spirit took possession of men and made them un¬ 
willing to listen to Mr. Campbell’s proposition, but the effort 
shows his goodness of heart and the courage of his convictions. 
His determination may have been hastened by a letter he had 
recently received from the front and which he read to the House. 
A part of it reads as follows: 

“April 25 will stand out as the day of horrors in my life. 
I suppose the landing against such odds was one of the finest 
things in history. Some poor chaps never got ashore. Boatload 
after boatload of troops grounded on the barbed-wire entangle¬ 
ments which stretched from the shore under water for 30 feet, 
and not a man of them was left alive. They floated away later, 
the boats filled to the gunwales with their dead. 

“On shore the sight was worse. So congested were the Turks 
in their trenches on such small land space that every. 12-inch or 
6-inch shell simply sent heads, legs, arms, and trunks of bodies 
flying in all directions. I think there must have been at least 
50 heavy men of war—British and French—as well as torpedo- 
boat destroyers as thick as gnats, banging away all day and all 
night without a stop. From the giant Queen Elizabeth down 
every ship was searching the Turkish trenches with guns of all 
calibers. Above aeroplanes w r ere spotting and bomb dropping. 
Every living person in a circle of 20 miles was bent on taking 
life or mangling some other person. This carnage was between 
men who had never exchanged a cross word; who had never even 
seen one another.” 

What Mr. Campbell said in reference to this letter and in 
support of his resolution applies so well to the League of Nations 
that I venture to give a brief extract of his remarks: 

“Mr. Chairman, it does not seem possible that this letter 
could have been written in an age and country where there is 
boast of culture and civilization, but it was, and the more than 
12,000,000 of men who are either missing, or are prisoners, or 
are wounded, or are dead, the $50,000,000,000 that have been 


WHY WE ARE NOT A MEMBER OF THE LEAGUE 27 

worse than wasted, tne untold billions of dollars’ worth of 
property that has been destroyed in the last 20 months in Europe 
all testify that civilized nations still resort to barbarous war 
when international questions arise; and, Mr. Speaker, it may as 
well be conceded that war, with all its barbarity and cruelty and 
inhumanity will continue to be the international arbiter until 
the nations of the world find some means of guaranteeing the 
integrity, the security, and equal honor to all nations upon all 
international questions. 

“It is an unspeakable calamity to the people of the world 
that the public mind in all generations has been taught and 
trained to think of war as the final arbiter of international dis¬ 
putes. (Even in this enlightened age and in our own beloved 
Christian country there is today a general assumption that there 
are international questions that can have no other honorable 
solution than by the arbitrament of war. We are today bound 
by a weird sort of worship of the punctilios in international rela¬ 
tions, in which the formality finally calls for a show of force and 
arms, in which when the curtain falls on diplomacy it instantly 
rises on war. The war drums beat, there is an appeal to national 
pride, and patriotic people yield to the war spirit. Today and 
for months past those in charge of our diplomacy are making 
demands for armed force on land and sea to an extent that little 
else has filled the public press or agitated the public mind, and 
Congress is responding to the demand for a larger Army and a 
larger Navy. 

“Is there no other honorable way of settling disputes be- 
nations ? To say there is not is to say that civilization and 
statesmanship have failed. The crucible of war now consuming 
Europe should produce something for humanity besides larger 
armies and navies and more destructive implements of war. 

“The ends to be attained are worthy of the sincerest and 
highest effort. This is an opportune time to press action upon 
it. It is doubtful if the world has ever been in a more deplor¬ 
able condition, so far as international relations are concerned. 

“Mr. Chairman, two ways are open to the people of the 
world. On the one hand, to continue existing conditions that re¬ 
sult in war and international anarchy: or, on the other hand, to 
provide an authority that shall duly enact and enforce an inter- 


28 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


national code of laws for tlie assertion of national rights and the 
redress of national wrongs among all nations. 

“The world is wearied and exhausted with blood and iron, 
with fire and sword, with deadly explosives, and asphyxiating 
gases; with agents of death operating in the air, on land, on sea, 
and under the sea; with the destruction of the accumulations of 
its labor and industry and the choicest treasures of its art; by 
the waste of untold money and property; with grievous burdens 
of debt and taxes; wearied and exhausted with war as the inter¬ 
national arbiter. 

“Humanity, saddened in every age and generation by war, 
its ruin, its squalor, its dead and wounded, its widows and or¬ 
phans, its every woe and affliction, bows ip anguish and in sorrow 
and pleads for the inauguration of the reign of authorized and 
orderly procedure by nations in settling their differences under 
international law. 

“Mr. Chairman, I urge, therefore, in the name of humanity, 
in the name of every race, of every creed, and of every religion; 
in the name of the world’s civilization I urge the adoption of an 
international constitution clothed with authority and power to 
furl all battle flags ‘in the parliament of man, the federation 
of the world/ and unfurl in every land and on every sea the 
emblem of an authority that, without doing dishonor or in¬ 
justice to any, will do equal honor and justice to all, and guar¬ 
antee equal security and protection to every nation beneath its 
folds, the great and the small, the strong and the weak, the rich 
and the poor, and establish tranquility throughout the world for 
ourselves and for our posterity to the remotest generations of 
time/' 

None of these propositions was adopted or even received 
respectful consideration, though every one was strictly in accord 
with the religious professions of the nation whose representatives 
offered it, making true the words of the Apostle John, when he 
says: “If a man says, ‘I love God’ and hateth his brother, he 
is a liar for he that hateth his brother whom he hath seen, how 
can he love God whom he hath not seen?” The last effort for 
a less expensive and barbarous method for the rulers of nations 


WHY WE ARE NOT A MEMBER OF THE LEAGUE 29 

to settle their disputes was the League of Nations, the hope of 
good men and women throughout the world. It has thus far 
been handicapped by militarists and politicians but will ultimate¬ 
ly prevail unless men have lost their reason. 

The blighting influence of political partisanship began to 
manifest itself and it soon became evident that the Republican 
leaders had decided to make the League the issue of the cam¬ 
paign in spite of the fact that most of their party were for it. 
A few party leaders whispered to other politicians that it would 
not do to let Woodrow Wilson and his party have the credit of 
bringing the peace of the world, something that had been desired 
for centuries. Besides, the League was needed for an issue. 
The tariff was then as dead as a door nail and was out of the 
question. Without an issue the people might believe the truth 
that there is but little difference between a Democrat and a Re~ 
publican, and that would be bad for professional politicians. 
The League could be killed by reservations and those who pro¬ 
posed to kill it could promise something far better, and so it 
went. 

Shortly afterward the case was correctly stated by the 
Columbus, Ohio, Dispatch. It said: “Another general feature of 
the situation which is not without its humorous aspect is the 
way we Republicans go out nearly every day and pick up another 
piece of a Wilson policy and then assume an air as if, of course, 
we had always had it.” 

The view taken by the various papers and men who were 
inclined to look at matters from a common sense standpoint is 
fairly illustrated by the Pathfinder, a weekly magazine pub¬ 
lished at Washington. The first two paragraphs were editorials 
about the time the Versailles treaty should have been ratified, 
the second two at the time when the gentlemen’s agreement of 
the five nations was adopted. The Pathfinder evidently thought 


*30 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


as did many others that five nations are better than none. 

“Since the awful war there has been and there is an insist¬ 
ent and universal aspiration toward peace. Never before have 
so many people hated war so much. Every forward step looking 
toward" prevention of future bloody conflicts has been welcomed 
by untold millions whose hopes rise at each sign of progress. ” 

“Never was the ground so well prepared as now for the 
seeds of war-prevention. Never was public opinion, the greatest 
of human forces, so unanimous, so enlightened and so earnest in 
desire for permanent peace and the abolition of the stupidest 
thing man has ever been guilty of—devastating war. From the 
millionaire to the poorest man; from the aristocrat to the man 
classed as “ nobody’’ the desire is the same, and it is intensified 
all along the line by fresh and poignant memories and vivid 
realizations of war’s horrors.” 

“We are sincerely glad that peace came thus as a non¬ 
partisan measure, and we congratulate the senators of both par¬ 
ties who thus joined in finishing a job that ought to have been 
finished long ago. We hoped, when the Versailles treaty was 
first submitted to the Senate by President Wilson, that the peace 
question would then be settled on a non-partisan basis. Demo¬ 
crats, Republicans and everyone else had joined in fighting the 
war, and there was no excuse in the world for splitting up when 
it came to putting the formal seal on its finish. 

“It was a terrible blunder—making the issue a partisan 
one—a blunder for which a terrible price has been paid and will 
have to be paid. It is of course too late now to wrangle over 
what might have been. We know that those who raised the par¬ 
tisan issue did what they believed to be for the best interests of 
the nation—but their judgment was bad. There was no good 
reason why a peace treaty should not have been fixed up at 
Versailles which all good Americans, regardless of party, could 
have approved. It is a pity that the issue of peace had to be 
taken into a political campaign, thus arousing great bitterness 
and delaying the final settlement.’’ 

There is no doubt that the defeat of the League by the 
United States was only temporary and that we shall eventually 


WHY WE ARE NOT A MEMBER OF THE LEAGUE 31 

become members. Many of those who followed men like Taft, 
Root, Hughes, Wickersham, Hoover and others, under the 
impression that Harding had something better to offer, agree 
with the Pathfinder that it was a great blunder to defeat the 
League. As was predicted by prominent Republicans, the League 
would become effective whether we joined or not, and when the 
people understand that all it lacks to make it complete is our 
becoming a member, we shall join without delay. 

Raymond B. Fosdick tells something of the first two years 
of the League in a thirteen page article in the August, 1922, 
Atlantic. Mr. Fosdick is not a politician but what he says on this 
or any other subject has weight with thinking people. I only 
wish that I might give more of his able article which bears the 
impress of careful thought. He says: 

“To its enemies in the United States the League of Nations 
must seem an unconscionable time a-dying. For more than two 
years it has tenaciously clung to life despite repeated prophecies 
of approaching demise. Occasionally, indeed, its actual death 
bas been announced—once by the President of the United States 
—and preparations have been begun in high places to celebrate 
its obsequies 

“But somehow the League still lives. Worse than that, it 
shows a surprising vitality. In spite of hard treatment and some 
neglect it seems to gain in strength and purpose. Certainly the 
League, as it exists today, with all the manifold activities which 
it is initiating and guiding, is a far different creature from the 
feeble offspring which the Treaty of Versailles so laboriously 
brought into the world. 

“For one thing it has more friends. Only a handful of the 
larger powers stood sponsor for it at birth. It was eyed with 
suspicion by the smaller nations. Today these smaller nations 
are its warmest supporters, and fifty-one countries are now en¬ 
rolled under its standard, representing in all, more than four- 
fifths of the world's population and nearly three fourths of its 
area. The list of absentees among the supporters of the League 
is more easily called than the roll of its membership: Abyssinia, 


32 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


Afghanistan, Ecuador, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Mexico, 
Russia, Turkey, and the United States. 

“But it is not its size alone which gives the League signifi¬ 
cance or which has brought it increasing vitality. With no prece¬ 
dents to follow, with no traditions to bind it, the League has 
struck out boldly in a new direction. On the theory that, if the 
nations of the world can get together for discussion around a 
common table, many of the conflicts of interest and misunder¬ 
standings of purpose can be reconciled and smoothed away, and 
many of the outstanding problems which confront all nations 
can be overcome, the League has built up the machinery for inter¬ 
national conference such as no previous generation has pos¬ 
sessed. And the machinery is working. However the enemies of 
the League may scoff at its impracticable purposes, the fact re¬ 
mains, that through the machinery which the League has brought 
into being, the nations are today sitting in conference on their 
common problems to a degree undreamed of a decade ago. 

“Of all the machinery which the League has established to 
promote the cause of peace nothing has evoked a greater meas¬ 
ure of interest than the court of International Justice. Made 
up of eleven judges of the highest professional standing,—one of 
whom is an American,—chosen regardless of their nationality by 
joint action of the Council and the Assembly of the League, it 
crowns with success a whole generation of determined effort. 
Civilization has now at its service a permanent world court, repre¬ 
senting all tfie great systems of international law, established by 
the suffrage of fifty-one countries and open for the settlement 
of disputes between nations on the basis of justice.” 

After describing some of the work of the court, Mr. Fosdick 
says: 

“There is no limit to the field of international cooperation. 
The campaign against disease is a case in point. Disease knows 
no boundaries and respects no flags. It is a common enemy of 
mankind which can be conquered only by concerted action. 
As modern methods of travel bring the world into closer relation¬ 
ships such action becomes imperative. To meet this need the 
League of 'Nations has established an international health organ¬ 
ization. which has brought together the brains and resources of 


WHY WE ARE NOT A MEMBER OF THE LEAGUE 33 

the entire world in a common fight on disease. At least twice 
every three weeks information is sent out and a monthly bulletin 
issued containing statistics and charts on the incidence all over 
the world of Asiatic fever, typhus, relapsing fever, dysentery, 
smallpox, anthrax, scurvy and other diseases.” 

‘ ‘ Here is a cooperative world-movement, the first of its kind 
in history, constituting a central rallying point around which 
the forces of law and peace may gather, and slowly developing 
new approaches to common dangers and new methods of common 
action. During its first two years, in a period of unparalleled 
difficulty, its positive achievement has been distinctly creditable, 
far wider in scope and greater in bulk than its best friends 
dreamed possible. In spite of all cynicism, all gibes, all remorse¬ 
less criticism, it has become a real influence in the world and won 
for itself a distinct place in the confidence and hope of many 
peoples.” 

Some of our prominent church papers evidently know the 
reason why the United States is not a member of the League 
and do not hesitate to attribute the cause to partisan politics. 
The Living Church says: 

“It has been a bitter disappointment to the Christian senti¬ 
ment of our people and our allies that we have allowed a great 
moral issue like the League of Nations to degenerate into an un¬ 
dignified strife for partisan victory. There is no doubt that not 
only the more thoughtful and intelligent elements of the Ameri¬ 
can people, but the American people, as a whole, deeply desire 
that our nation should take its full share of international respon¬ 
sibility. 

“Our people desire to bear their witness to the great moral 
necessity of some sort of international agreement to establish 
peace. They are.entirely willing to accept such reservations as 
are necessary to gain that end, and our allies have expressed 
themselves as willing to agree to any reservations we demand. 

“The world is tired of war, and is saying, Let us have peace. 
Ultimately we cannot doubt that the will of the people will pre¬ 
vail, and the day will come when the United States will take her 
place loyally, faithfully and unreservedly in the council of na- 


34 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


tions for peace and justice, not only in America, but in every 
part of the world. Our people as a whole are absolutely against 
the principle of national selfishness, whether in America or in 
Europe. They believe that the interests of one are involved in 
the interests of all. ’ * 

It is too well known to need further proof that the United 
States has thus far been kept from becoming a member of the 
League of Nations by partisan politics. It is not so well known, 
perhaps, just how it was done so as to deceive the ablest and 
best men of the Republican party who were earnestly in favor 
of joining other nations for the 'peace of the world. The follow¬ 
ing, out of the mouths of their own witnesses ought to be re¬ 
garded as proof conclusive on the subject: It is a letter to the 
Columbus, Ohio, Dispatch, a Republican newspaper, written by 
its Washington correspondent, Louis Ludlow, on the 30th of 
April, 1923. 

“The same group of Republican senators that did the 
League of Nations to death with reservations is now getting 
ready to perform in exactly the same way on President Harding’s 
proposal that the United States shall join the international court. 
Senator Lodge is at the head of this group. Senator Watson of 
Indiana is his first lieutenant and field man. On the foreign 
relations committee, supporting Senator Lodge in this plan of 
insidious destruction, are Senator Frank B. Brandegee of Con¬ 
necticut, Senator George H. Moses of New Hampshire and others. 
Moses is chairman of the Republican senatorial committee which 
renders aid to Republican senators who desire to be elected. He is 
in a position to command influence. On the committee also are 
Senators Hiram Johnson of California and William E. Borah of 
Idaho, who, while they do not acknowledge the leadership of 
Lodge, are dead set against the President’s court idea and will 
join in the effort to kill it with reservations. 

“The whole program is to be one of scuttle, just as the 
League of Nations met its death by the scuttle tactics. 

“A Republican senator who was one of the active partici¬ 
pants in the League fight told a group of newspaper men today 


WHY WE ARE NOT A MEMER OF THE LEAGUE 


35 


the story of how the League covenant was sent to the boneyard. 

“ ‘When President Wilson brought the League of Nations 
covenant from Paris and laid it on the doorstep of the Senate 
for ratification, the sentiment of the country was overwhelmingly 
in favor of it/ said this Republican senator. ‘If a popular vote 
had been taken then, fully 80 per cent of the people wduld have 
been in favor of ratifying it instanter, without changing a 
-comma. 

“ ‘I was disturbed. I was against it, believing its ratifica¬ 
tion would have held over this nation the greatest menace in all 
its history. I knew' that Senator Lodge, chairman of the foreign 
relations committee, was against it. I had gone through a long 
period of legislative service in the lower brancji of Congress, 
but I was a new man in the Senate and had never had occasion 
to deal with the foreign problems that fall to a senator’s lot. 

“ ‘I w r ent to Senator Lodge in an agitated frame of mind. 

1 ‘ ‘ Senator, ’ I said, ‘ this is getting serious. The country is 
for this abominable thing. The newspapers are for it. What 
are we going to do?’ 

“ ‘ He was cool as a cucumber, without a trace of worry. 

“ 4 “It is true/’ he answered, “that at the present time the 
country wants the league. We could not kill it on a direct vote, 
but we can, and will kill it by indirection.” 

“ ‘I asked him what he meant by that and he told me of the 
plan to propose reservations to it. That was my first intro¬ 
duction to the term “reservation” as applied to treaties, but I 
soon learned that a reservation can be made a most formidable 
weapon in the hands of a skillful opponent. 

“ ‘That was shown by the way the country was won over 
from- positive advocacy to intense hostility to the League of Na¬ 
tions. When the debate began everybody expected the covenant 
to be ratified, but one by one the reservations were proposed and 
debated and public sentiment slowly but surely shifted. 

“ ‘There was one reservation, in particular that did the 
work. It was brought out that Great Britain would have six 
votes in the assembly of the League of Nations while the United 
States would have only one. Americans were asked if they were 
willing that Great Britain should have six times the advantage 


36 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


the United States would have, and from one end of the country 
to the other there was a chorus of emphatic ‘ “noes.” ' ” 

Can any one longer doubt that a large majority of the peo¬ 
ple of the United States were at heart in favor of joining other 
nations in a league to abolish war and stop what has been the 
greatest expense and the most. fruitful source of immorality of 
all civilized nations? It is war among nations that profess the 
religion of the Prince of Peace that gives the Mohammedans and 
Hindus grounds for calling the Christian religion one that be¬ 
lieves in war. 

Leslie's Weekly said, under the head of “Burdens of War/' 
more than ten years ago, that something must be done to relieve 
the world of the intolerable burden of the war basis. I wonder 
what it would say when the burden is twenty times as great. 
It said then: 

“Students of international affairs realize that something 
must be done to relieve the world of the intolerable burden of the 
war basis. In the eight years from 1902 to 1910, armed peace 
cost our country $1,483,200,000, and in the last 37 years it has 
cost Europe at least $110,000,000,000, only $5,000,000,000 less 
than the entire wealth of the United States. This means an 
attack on every man, for every one helps to build our magnificent 
engines of war. On the supposition that wages average $600 to 
the family, armed peace lays a yearly tax of 1% per cent on the 
total wages paid in the United States; and we pay it in the 
higher price of our goods. Think of all the men in the armies 
and navies of the world who are thus taken out of useful employ¬ 
ment. What an army of producers they might be! Instead of 
constituting a drain upon our resources, what a splendid con¬ 
tribution they might make to the wealth of nations! Think, too, 
of the thousands of homes with the family circle permanently 
broken up by army and navy service.” 

There are few who do not know that the American people 
are not almost unanimously for peace if they speak the truth, 
though their acts sometimes tell a different story. Neither is 
4 


WHY WE ARE NOT A MEMBER OF THE LEAGUE 37 

there any doubt that most of them believe with Roosevelt and 
Lodge that the only way to secure universal peace is through a 
league of nations. I give the following only to emphasize what 
the correspondent of the Columbus, Ohio, Dispatch and others 
have said as to partisan politics, of which deception is the prin¬ 
cipal element, being responsible for the United States thus going 
it alone. Mark Sullivan, one of our ablest and most careful 
waiters, and who w r as present at the last national Republican 
convention, has an article in November, 1923, World’s Work. 
After first discussing Prof. Fisher’s public assertion that the 
late President Harding w r as in favor of the League of Nations, 
he says: 


“When the League first came into the general thought of 
Americans, I suspect—but do not know—that Harding’s attitude 
was like that of four out of five of the rank and file of Republi¬ 
cans and all other Americans. The idea behind it, and the pur¬ 
pose aimed at, was a noble aspiration. Exclusively that. No¬ 
body charged then that there was anything but benevolent in¬ 
tention in the minds of Wilson and the other men w r ho made the 
League. With the purpose of the League, everybody sympathizes 
who washes w r ell toward humanity. And Harding, as a man who 
had an unusual endowment of love for his fellow-men, had sym¬ 
pathy with the purpose of the League in proportion. 

“The then President of the United States had written it, 
chiefly. That alone was enough for everybody who believes that 
no President of the United States would wilfully do a sinister, 
malevolent act. If this were not enough, both the idea of the 
League and the actual wording of it, except as to suggestions for 
unimportant modification, had been formally endorsed by the 
only living Republican ex-President. That action of Mr. Taft, 
standing on the same stage with Wilson, at the Metropolitan 
Opera House in New York, and giving public and moving en¬ 
dorsement to the League as written by Wilson and his associates 
at Paris—that almost spectacular approval by a Republican ex- 
President of a Democratic President’s act, is almost unparalleled 
in American history. It is not surprising that it carried convic- 


38 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


tion to the overwhelming mass of Americans who did not regard 
it as worth while actually to read the constitution of the League, 
or, if they should read it, would regard it as ridiculous to set up 
their own relatively uninformed interpretation of the words as- 
against the interpretation of such men as President Wilson and 
ex-President Taft. 

“But when the comma-hounds of the Senate began to scent 
foul suspicions in phrases and implications, in Article This and 
Article That, doubtless Mr. Harding’s experience continued to 
coincide with that of the average American, the average Ameri¬ 
can which Harding conspicuously was—in his personality, point 
of view and reaction to feeling. That first reaction was one of 
indignation tempered with amusement that any one should set 
himself up in opposition and criticism of the instrument of so 
beneficent a purpose. But the persistence of that little band of 
early dissenters, the sincerity of their feeling, the firmness of 
their opposition, and the reiteration of their suspicions, became, 
in course of time, a kind of emotional infection which spread 
over the country—a wave of, first doubt, then disbelief, and, 
finally, on the part of many, violent opposition, which registered 
itself so strongly in the election of 1920. 

“But the great fight was on just what position the party 
should take on the League of Nations and how it should be 
phrased. Of the Republican leaders who were present in Chicago, 
a clear majority were in favor of giving some kind of endorse¬ 
ment to the League, with or without reservations. I suspect it 
is even true that of the fifty-two members of the Committee on 
Resolutions, the majority were in favor of a platform endorsing 
the League. The fight in favor of endorsement was led by the 
late Senator Murray Crane of Massachusetts. Crane was acute¬ 
ly earnest for the League. He was as much in favor of it as 
any Democrat, or as such Republicans as ex-President Taft. The 
plank Senator Crane would have written did not differ materi¬ 
ally from what Woodrow Wilson might have written as the 
League plank for a Democratic platform. 

If anyone has ever been for the League and then seems to 
change his mind, it can be accounted for generally by saying that 


WHY WE ARE NOT A MEMBER OF THE LEAGUE 


39 


the change was made because the man thought his party supreme. 
Mr. Sullivan accounts for Senator Crane’s change of front on the 
League by saying: 

“At the most tense moment of the platform fight, Senator 
Brandegee said, with an excited tone and manner, that if the 
Republican National Convention should endorse the League of 
Nations, he would go back to Connecticut, call a convention of 
the party leaders in his state, and tell them that he did not care 
to continue to represent the Republican party in the United 
States Senate. That was the declaration that made Senator 
Crane pause. To Senator Crane, as an orthodox New England 
Republican, it was little matter for a senator from a small "West¬ 
ern state like Idaho to threaten to bolt. When Senator Borah 
made any such threat, the reaction of Senator Crane and of 
other orthodox Republican leaders of his kind, was one of in¬ 
difference, if not of actual hope that the party should be relieved 
of embarrassment from a troublesome element. 


CHAPTER III 


Prominent Republicans For The League. 

“Our country’s welfare is our first concern; he who 
promotes that best, proves his duty.” —Havard. 

No man who has the mental ability and the moral integrity 
sufficient to be President of the United States ought to be a par¬ 
tisan. Whether his majority is large or whether he is elected by 
a minority, as has been the case several times in our history, he 
ought to be the President of all the people and not merely of a 
clique of political favorites. The President of the United States 
presides over the destinies of a hundred million people and 
should be as fair as the judge who looks after the legal welfare 
of a few thousand. It is of little use, however, to argue this 
question, for, under the system as it now is, and has been since 
the memory of man runneth not to the contrary, no man stands 
the slightest chance of being nominated for President by the old 
parties unless he is known as a partisan likely to carry out party 
views if elected. It was known in advance that President Hard¬ 
ing believed that “to the victor belong the spoils,’’ though a 
more humane and modern doctrine is that there should be no 
spoils in politics. A dispatch to a Republican paper in June, 
1920, said: “Harding is a partisan. He believes in government 
by parties. He intends, if fortune smiles on him and gives him 
the presidency, to adhere strictly to this principle during his 
term of office. ,, 

The President’s partisan course on the League of Nations, 
which was infinitely the most important question he had to con¬ 
sider; his hobnobbing with Newberry, inviting him to the 


PROMINENT REPUBLICANS FOR THE LEAGUE 


41 


theater and to luncheon when he knew that he had been found 
guilty of violating Republican law, by a Republican court and a 
Republican jury; his winking at the letter and spirit of the civil 
service law for partisan ends, all indicate that he put Party first 
and Principle afterward. True, he was Senator before he be¬ 
came President, but the Senate is a poor place to 'liberalize par¬ 
tisans. No man had meaner things to say of Roosevelt and the 
Progressives in 1912 than had Mr. Harding in his paper. He 
had so spoken of both Roosevelt and his candidate for Vice 
President that it was a bitter dose for the Philadelphia North 
American to support him in 1920, but party spirit, which is one 
of the strongest and most unreasonable incentives that controls 
man, led the North American to support Mr. Harding. 

The North American is one of the ablest papers of the coun¬ 
try and was strong for Mr. Roosevelt. The editor notified his 
readers in 1920 that he would support the Republican ticket, but 
he first relieved himself by publishing a lot of things that Presi¬ 
dent Harding’s paper had said of the Progressive ticket in 1912. 
Among other things he said: 

“Apart from the falsity and venom of his statements, they 
are notable for their cheap coarseness, in some cases reaching 
unredeemed vulgarity. They could have emanated only from a 
mind vindictively partisan and narrowly provincial. Nothing 
that Senator Harding can say at this time, in our opinion, can 
mitigate his offense; any attempt in this direction would be 
likely to lay him open to the charge of hypocrisy. We can con¬ 
ceive of no explanatory or deprecatory remarks from him that 
would change the feelings of Progressives. If our own feelings 
in the matter afford any index to the sentiments of other friends 
and followers of Theodore Roosevelt, nothing can erase or palli¬ 
ate that record .’’ 

I publish this for a double purpose. It shows that President 
Harding lacked that calm judgment that should characterize the 
chief executive of a great country, and for the purpose of help- 


42 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


ing my contention that party politics, as a rule, is a stronger 
tie than public duty. If any one had made venomous and false 
statements about the editor of the North American, either pub¬ 
licly or privately, he would not have considered him a safe man 
with whom to be in business, much less one to be entrusted to 
preside over a hundred million people. 

It is an interesting study to follow President Harding’s wan¬ 
derings on the subject of the League of Nations. In the Senate 
he voted first for the amendment of some of the mild reserva- 
tionists. Then he got around to the Lodge reservations. Though 
he undoubtedly knew that Lodge, the leader of the Senate, had 
said that a separate peace with Germany would brand us with 
disgrace, both he and Lodge voted for a separate peace. 

On July 22, 1921, in his speech of acceptance at Marion, he 
said: “I can speak unreservedly of the American aspiration and 
the committal for an association of nations co-operating in sub¬ 
lime accord to attain and preserve peace through justice rather 
than force.” On August 28, he said at Marion: “It is not un¬ 
common for the advocates of the League of Versailles to contrast 
unfavorably the Hague tribunal upon the ground that the tri¬ 
bunal lacks teeth. Very well, then; let us put teeth in it. If the 
League has been so entwined and interwoven with the peace of 
Europe that its good must be preserved in order to stabilize the 
peace of that continent, then it may be amended or revised.” 

On September 5, he gave the following to the press: “Un¬ 
doubtedly there is much good in the covenant of Versailles. I 
have no desire to fling it all aside.” On September 6, he said: 
“We are now all agreed that amendment or reconstruction is 
possible and vastly better than reservation. (Whom does he 
mean when he says “we”?) On September 26, he said at Balti¬ 
more : “I am without a single program constructive in charac¬ 
ter, about an association of nations. The first thing I will try to 
do is to find a plan for an association behind which all Americans 


PROMINENT REPUBLICANS FOR THE LEAGUE 43 

will stand.” A few days afterward at Des Moines he said: “I 
do not want to clarify the obligations. I want to turn my back 
on them. It is not interpretation but rejection that I want.” 

It took President Harding four months after nomination to 
decide what he would do with the League, and say definitely that 
he would turn his back on the Versailles treaty. Even then 
some Republicans who were honestly for the League insisted 
that Harding was for it and the only way to get it was to vote 
for him. Could anything show party fealty more plainly than 
the treatment of the League by those who were in favor of it, but 
voted against it because they were told by their leaders that to 
vote against it was the only way to get it or something better? 
It was a case of following the leaders no matter where they 
might go. 

After President Harding had boxed the compass on the 
League question he finally came out shortly before the election 
with five propositions explaining his position. In the meantime 
he made up his mind what was best to say on the subject after 
consulting, not with statesmen, but with partisans of his party: 

“It seems to me that there should not remain a shadow of a 
doubt as to my position as regards the proposed League of Nations 
as drafted at Paris and submitted to the Senate and as regards 
the great world sentiment for a better understanding among 
nations to discourage war and generally to advance civilization. 
Let me reiterate my position as explicitly as my power of words 
permits: 

“First—I am unalterably opposed to going into the League 
of Nations as that particular proposition now stands. That pro¬ 
posal is contemptuous of and potentially destructive of the 
American Constitution. 

11 Second—I am in favor of a world association—call it what 
you will, the name is of slight consequence—that will discourage 
or tend to prevent war and that will encourage or tend to encour¬ 
age a better understanding among the nations of the earth. The 


4 


44 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


old order of things is done with not only in America, but through¬ 
out the w r orld, and the United States, quick with sympathy, 
always just and usually led by common sense, must play its 
part in this new order. 

“Third 'I believe that such an association can be formu¬ 
lated without wrecking the Constitution that remains the corner¬ 
stone of our liberties and of our happiness; without seizing or 
filching the sovereignty that is our pride and our inspiration to 
fine living and good works. 

“Fourth—I earnestly believe that the conscience, the ready 
sympathy, the sense of justice and the plain common sense of the 
United States can be depended upon by the rest of the world and 
that it would be stupid as well as unlawful to attempt to chain 
our sympathies, our sense of justice and our common sense, to 
tie these strong, fine, dependable American qualities to the possi¬ 
bly selfish ambitions and aims of foreign nations or group of 
nations, whose ideals are not the same as ours, never have been 
and never will be. 

“Fifth—It is my purpose, when elected, to take the whole 
people into my confidence as regards these matters, to seek their 
advice, and, more importantly, to act consonantly wun their 
advice; and to this end it will be my pleasure as well as my 
duty to call into conference with me the best minds, the cleanest 
minds, that America affords. I thank God that the time has come 
when I can ask the advice of American women, and especially the 
mothers of America. 

“The substance of these things has been said in some form 
or other in every address, and I say it all definitely now, because 
I am not always fully reported, and I want America to under¬ 
stand my thought of co-operation as well as the abiding opposi¬ 
tion to the League proposed.” 

Mr. Harding in thinking the matter over had great rever¬ 
ence for the American Constitution and was evidently afraid 
of violating it by giving countenance to the League. As a man 
honestly seeking the truth, did he consult constitutional lawyers 
on the subject? Did he ask Mr. Wiekersham’s opinion? He 
was sufficiently versed in the law to be Attorney General in a 
Republican cabinet. Did he ask Mr. Root, who is supposed to 


PROMINENT REPUBLICANS FOR THE LEAGUE 


45 


be one of the best constitutional lawyers in the world, what he 
thought of it? Did he consult Mr. Hughes, who resigned as a 
member of the Supreme Court to become the Republican candi¬ 
date for President? He was under a strong moral obligation to 
appoint the best lawyer in the nation to be Chief Justice of 
the United States. He appointed William Howard Taft. Did 
he ask his opinion as to the constitutionality of the League ? It is 
apparent that he got more information as to the League from 
politicians than from constitutional lawyers. He says that the 
ideals of foreign nations were not the same as ours. Is that not 
a bad admission, for the great ideal of over fifty nations was for 
the peace of the w r orld, and is still? 

IIow about Senator Henry Cabot Lodge ? He is the acknowl¬ 
edged leader of the Senate, the man who is supposed to lead the 
others. Is he a broad-minded man, noted for his fairness, or is 
he known as a partisan ? He has been in congress nearly forty 
years and is remembered mostly for his force bill and the League 
of Nations, either of which was a tribute to his partisanship, 
but neither to broad-minded statesmanship. It was his partisan¬ 
ship that defeated temporarily the League of Nations as far as 
the United States is concerned, and we have gained throughout 
the world the reputation of being the only great nation that is a 
moral coward. 

Lodge voted for a separate peace with Germany after say¬ 
ing that to do so would brand us with everlasting disgrace. He 
wants Germany to pay up, though he knows that if Germany 
pays at all she must do it with goods which he wanted so branded 
that everybody would know them and nobody want them. He 
has been an ardent civil service reformer, but if there was ever 
a Republican who wanted an office held by a man who was not 
and he did not get it, it was because Henry Cabot Lodge did not 
have the necessary power. He made the chancellor’s address in 


46 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


1914 at Union College in which he declared there was but one 
way in which the peace of the world could be preserved, and 
that is by a League of Nations. The League was even more 
necessary in 1920 and much more easily obtained than it was 
in 1914, but the same political party was not advocating it. 
When the war was concluded with Spain an effort was made to 
defeat the treaty. Senator Lodge declared if that were done, 
we would be repudiating the President before the whole world, 
and his repudiation in such a matter would, to his mind, humili¬ 
ate the United States in the eyes of the whole world. A Demo¬ 
cratic President bringing a treaty from fifty-one nations was not 
so important in Mr. Lodge’s eyes as the treaty of one nation from 
a Republican President. There is no room to doubt that if the 
League of Nations had been regarded as a Republican measure, 
Senator Lodge would have argued that to defeat it would be a 
national calamity. 

# 

If a number of intelligent citizens, regardless of their 
political views, were to be asked who was the most talked of 
man in the United States regarding the cause of peace, they 
would unanimously accord that honor to William H. Taft. He 
was better known for his advocacy of peace than any other man. 
He was seemingly heart and soul for the League of Nations, even 
without any amendments because he felt that it didn’t need any. 
He made speeches in company with President Wilson for it; he 
defended it when attacked; he wrote pamphlets for it; he 
stumped the country for it, yet when it was made a party ques¬ 
tion he turned his back on what he said was the most important 
thing in all the earth and was for his party, League or no League. 

Among the booklets in my possession bearing the imp rim 
of the League to Enforce Peace, Wm. H. Taft, President, are the 
following: “Attention, Republicans.” This is a twelve page 
pamphlet written by George W. Wiokersham, who was Attorney 


PROMINENT REPUBLICANS FOR THE LEAGUE 47 

General in Mr. Taft's cabinet. It is not necessary to say that 
Mr. Wickersham is an able lawyer, an orthodox Republican 
and a strong advocate of the League. He begs his party not to 
let a few senators, blinded by partisanship and resentment, de¬ 
feat it. Mr. Wickersham shows that every objection, made to the 
League of Nations by those who objected to any part of it, was 
fully met by some provision of the League itself. He points out 
that more than twenty treaties were ratified without a single 
reservation by the Senate in 1914-15. These were the treaties, 
submitted by Secretary Bryan, which bound the contracting 
nations to submit all questions of dispute to an international 
commission. They were left as written by Mr. Bryan, as were 
also the treaties made by Secretary Root with ten of the leading 
nations which bound all these countries to submit their differ¬ 
ences to the permanent court established at The Hague. I may 
say in passing that Germany was the only nation of any impor¬ 
tance that did not sign the treaties of either Root or Bryan. Mr. 
Wickersham says in winding up: 

/ 

“The question before the Republican party today is whether 
it will allow a few senators blinded by passion and resentment 
at the President and his administration to commit the party of 
great national and international ideals to the reversal of its 
principles, the abandonment of its high mission and a position 
of opposition to the only practicable, attainable plan before the 
world to avert from posterity the recurrence, the misery and the 
tragedy of further wars." 

I find a pamphlet written by Oscar A. Strauss who was 
Ambassador to Turkey and one of Roosevelt's cabinet. He-says 
in beginning his pamphlet that whatever Mr. Root says in re¬ 
spect to international matters demands attention and the highest 
respect by reason of his distinguished services and recognized 
skill, learning and ability. Mr. Root, according to Mr. Strauss, 
wrote a long and carefully prepared statement to the chairman 


48 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


of the Republican National Committee on March 31, 1920, re¬ 
viewing the League of Nations and suggesting six amendments. 
The suggestions or amendments were carefully considered and in 
the main were embodied in the revised covenant. To the chair¬ 
man of the Republican committee Mr. Root seemed very reason¬ 
able. Afterward, in a letter to Senator Lodge, he advised drop¬ 
ping entirely Article X. It is to this that Mr. Strauss confines 
his attention mainly, and he makes the objection to the article 
seem pitifully weak. He says that no one appreciates more than 
Mr. Root that the covenant, even if all his suggestions should be 
adopted, would in time require amendment just as our own and 
other constitutions have required amendment. 

Mr. Strauss concludes: ‘ ‘ Insistence upon the elimination of 
Article X at this stage I cannot conceive to have any other effect 
than to prevent the United States from becoming a member of 
the League. Several of the foremost representatives of the great 
powers have expressed themselves as believing there can be no 
effective League without the United States. Our country has a 
long line of traditions for the settlement of international differ¬ 
ences by peaceable means. Not to enter the League, the main 
purpose of which is to substitute the arbitrament of law for war, 
would certainly be a more direct violation of American traditions 
than the dicta of our fathers regarding entangling European 
Alliances. J ’ 

Among the pamphlets published by the League to Enforce 
Peace is one entitled, ‘'America and Article X,” by the Globe- 
Democrat of St. Louis, one of the leading Republican papers of 
the middle West. As will be remembered the only objection at 
first on the part of any one on this side of the Atlantic was to 
Article X, and the Globe Democrat gives its considerations to 
this article. It says in part: 

“If this or any other provision of the covenant would in- 


PROMINENT REPUBLICANS FOR THE LEAGUE 


49 


crease the danger of war it is safe to say that no nation and few 
individuals would favor it—not now at any rate, after the ex¬ 
perience of the last four years. But the sole purpose of the 
League of Nations is to prevent war, or diminish it as far as 
humanly possible, and this section is considered necessary for 
the purpose. No concession was made to this demand of the 
American critics as to this section, because it was considered vital 
to the existence of the League. Why is it considered vital? be¬ 
cause any association of nations to promote peace and which 
intend, as a means to that end to reduce their armament, must 
have some assurance of mutual protection. If they voluntarily 
weaken their defenses there must be some understanding among 
them to prevent such weakening from imperiling any of their 
number. ’ ’ 

“The purpose of Article X, as of the whole covenant, is to 
prevent war. If there had been such an agreement in existence 
in 1914 there would have been no war. Germany would not have 
dared to begin a war with the knowledge that all the other na¬ 
tions, and particularly England and the United States, were 
leagued against her in such a purpose. There was much of mad¬ 
ness in the conduct of Germany, but she was not so mad as that. 
If Germany with all her power, the greatest war power ever 
developed by any people, would not have dared this, what nation 
would have? Where is the country that would dare to engage in 
war with such a force potentially against it? The mere moral 
power of this agreement is quite sufficient to deter any nation 
from war without complying with the procedure of arbitration 
or conciliation required in this covenant.” 

Th eGlobe-Democrat calls Taft, Root and Hughes the ablest 
Republicans of the country and says they discussed Article X 
at length before the covenant was revised. As they offered 
seventeen amendments, fourteen of which were adopted, the 
Globe-Democrat assumes and has a right to assume that if the 
covenant was good enough for the remainder of the world it was 
good enough for the United States. It says that Hughes was 
the least friendly of the three and he admitted that it was up 


50 


THE LE^?&UE OF NATIONS 


to Congress to decide whether or not we should go to war, if the 
other means provided by the League should fail. As some of my 
readers may not have read Article X, or remember what it was, 

I give it in full that any one may see it is only what any nation 
would expect of others, if it was acting in good faith. Follow^ 
ing is the article that was used as an excuse for objecting to the 
League: 

“The members of the League undertake to respect and pre¬ 
serve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and 
existing political independence of all members of the League. In 
case of any such aggression or in case of any threat of such ag¬ 
gression, the council shall advise upon the means by which this 
obligation shall be fulfilled.” 

As time goes on the trifling criticisms of this article will 
seem as puerile as were the objections to the Constitution when 
it was adopted. Even men like Patrick Henry and Richard 
Henry Lee were against it bitterly. Though the colonies were 
practically in a condition of anarchy after the Revolutionary 
War under the Articles of Confederation, it was with great diffi¬ 
culty that the new constitution was adopted, though the conven¬ 
tion was presided over by Washington, and some of the ablest 
men of the country were members. » 

The convention met in May, 1797, and finished its labors in 
September of the same year. The proceedings of the convention 
were not made public for fifty years. The members of the con¬ 
vention were far from being unanimous, but they felt that they 
could be free to say what they pleased as long as no one outside 
was to know anything of the proceedings. If they came to any 
agreement, those outside would have only the Constitution to 
consider and none of the arguments against it. After it was 
submitted all sorts of criticism were urged against it. It was well 
said by some one during the time the League of Nations was 
under fire that there is nothing now being said against the 


PROMINENT REPUBLICANS FOR THE LEAGUE 


51 


League that was not said in 1788 with equal cogency, bitterness 
and fear that the liberties of America were forever doomed, if this 
■constitution should become the law. This same Constitution is 
now considered one of the greatest documents ever drafted by 
the hand of man. 

No colony was unanimously for the new Constitution. Little 
Rhode Island did not come in for nearly three years after the 
Constitution was submitted and even Hamilton had a hard time 
to get it passed in New York. After a long contest he carried the 
State 'by 30 to 27. Franklin, who was a member of the conven¬ 
tion, was called an old dotard; Washington was a good general, 
but knew nothing of politics, and was an old fool, according to 
some. Hamilton had always believed in monarchy, and the 
President, under the new Constitution, would be only a puppet 
king. If Rhode Island should get into trouble Massachusetts 
would be obliged to share in it! The Articles of Confederation 
were good enough to whip Ring George, many could not see why 
they were not good enough for the colonies. In order to pass at 
all bargains and compromises were made of which self respect¬ 
ing men felt ashamed. If those who made such trivial objections 
to the Constitution could have them brought to their attention 
today, they would hide their heads in shame. The childish objec¬ 
tions made to the League of Nations will, in a few years, seem 
fully as ridiculous. 

To come back to the pamphlets sent out by the League to 
Enforce Peace, William H. Taft, Chairman. One of the book¬ 
lets is entitled “Labor and the League of Nations.” It was 
written by John H. Walker and is a most eloquent appeal. Mr. 
Walker was spokesman for labor and was one of the distinguished 
men who accompanied Mr. Taft on his trip of May and June, 
1919, through fifteen States, speaking for the League of Nations; 

“Every normal-minded person is opposed to war. Every 
normal-minded person wishes to prevent war if it be possible to 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


J 


do so honorably and without having to submit to some impossible 
condition. Particularly is this true of organized labor—the men 
and women who, by the very fact that they are organized, show 
that among the ranks of the workers they are the thinking ones. 
They have arrived at that conclusion, not because they are afraid 
to fight, for their whole lives have been more or less of a fight. 
The suffering, misery and cost of their daily struggles are little 
less than that of actual 'bloody warfare. While they ^are not 
afraid to fight, they want to avoid that terrible cost whenever 


possible.” 

* ‘ They are strongly in favor of the establishment of a League 
of Nations, a tribunal through which, by peaceful means, dis¬ 
putes between nations can be settled without resort to wars such 
as we have gone through. -Every mother’s heart has been wrung; 
every father’s heart has aehed with pain, millions of children 
have been made fatherless; billions of property have been de¬ 
stroyed, and a burden of taxation has been levied on the human 
race under which it will stagger for generations, making it im¬ 
possible that the next generation shall have fulness of life or de¬ 
velop as it should. ’ ’ 

“Satisfying Old Samuel Adams” is the title of another 
tract published by the League to Enforce Peace, William H. 
Taft, President. This was written by William E. Barton of the 
Independent. It is a history of the criticisms made of the 
American Constitution and comparing them with those made 
against the League. The back of this pamphlet contains a fitting 
cartoon by Darling of the New York Tribune . The cartoon is 
labelled, “Inspecting the New Baby,” and tells a lot in a few 
words. The new baby is the League of Nations. Around the 
child are seven or eight old fellows making all sorts of invidious 
remarks. One finds fault that it has no teeth; another that it 
cannot talk, and a third thinks we have enough trouble without 
adopting that thing. Finally the one who seems to be closest, 
after a critical examination, says that it might be all right, if it 
only had the right kind of a daddy. That was all it lacked to 
make it just what the country needed. If the League of Nations 


PROMINENT REPUBLICANS FOR THE LEAGUE 53 

had been of Republican origin and the party likely to get the 
credit of bringing peace to the world, it would have passed the 
Senate without the crossing of a “t’’ or the dotting of an “i.” 

• Both Lodge and Harding would have been among its warmest 
supporters. 

I should perhaps tell the meaning of the title of this pam¬ 
phlet. The Samuel Adams to whom reference is made was a 
somewhat noted man of Massachusetts who was a graduate of 
Harvard and had been in Congress. He was strong for inde¬ 
pendence, but it was doubtful whether he would vote for the 
new constitution. He sat for three weeks and never opened his 
mouth. Finally he said, “I am satisfied.” Soon after, the Con¬ 
stitution was adopted in Massachusetts by a vote of 187 to 168. 

It may be objected that while ex-Presddent Taft was presi¬ 
dent of the company that published many documents for the 
League of Nations, he did not know what they contained, and 
should not be held responsible for what they said. As he trav¬ 
eled over fifteen States, making speeches in favor of the League, 
I do not think he is inclined to shirk the responsibility. There is 
no doubt that he was strong for the League, but great as was his 
love for the peace of the world, his love of party was still 
stronger. That there may be no doubt on the subject, however, 
I quote from the 16-page pamphlet, “Ratify the Covenant,” 
which is the strongest that have come into my possession. Mr. 
Taft is given as the author of this tract and it was published 
by the “League to Enforce Peace.” Mr. Taft’s booklet meets 
the trivial objections to the League in a masterly manner. The 
first quotation I shall give is found in two places. It is con¬ 
sidered worthy of a place in the book and is also found on the 
cover. He says: 

“This is not a partisan question. We should be for or 
against the League of Nations without regard to whether it will 
bring credit to any man. Personal and partisan considerations 


54 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


should have no weight wdth us in an issue so fateful in the 
world's history, and so likely to affect the future welfare of the 
United States and all mankind. The Emperor of Russia sum¬ 
moned a conference at The Hague, and one of the purposes was 
to secure a mutual and common limitation of armaments, and it 
was prevented by the obdurate refusal of Germany to give the 
slightest support to such a proposal. Our own delegates were 
instructed to press in favor of it. Now, these objectors propose 
that we shall take the place of Germany by our refusal to join 
in a common limit of armaments and, so defeat the purposes of 
the League.” 

“We made such a treaty with Great Britain more than 
one hundred years ago, in which we agreed to limit our arma¬ 
ment on the Great Lakes if she would do the same thing. We 
have kept that treaty alive for more than a century. It ’was not 
thought to be unconstitutional then; its validity has not been 
questioned during the one hundred years of its life, and we have 
been proud of the fact that we made and kept it. ’ 5 

“A League of Nations means something that binds nations 
to accomplish a common purpose. We cannot hope by united 
power to accomplish a common purpose unless each member con¬ 
tributes his share to the means by which that, purpose is to be 
effected. There are those who say they are in favor of a League, 
but not in favor of this League because it has obligations. That 
means that they are not in favor of any league. It means that 
they are in favor of something that binds other nations and does 
not bind us to do our share of the work, needed to accomplish the 
purpose of the League. What we are to do by the League is 
a stitch in time, by assuming some slight obligations to protect 
us against the heavy, burdensome and destructive obligations 
involved in competitive armament and another general war, and 
to secure to us and to the w^orld the blessings of permanent 
peace. ’ ’ 

Among Mr. Taft's many addresses w r as one before the Bar 
Association of Wisconsin. In the course of his speech he made 
the following suggestions: “There are certain issues that rise 
above party, that transcend all parties and all party triumphs 


PROMINENT REPUBLICANS FOR THE LEAGUE 55 

that are merely temporary. This issue, the League, is as funda¬ 
mental as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of 
the United States or the issues of the Civil War.” 

In spite of these strong words, putting the League above 
party; in spite of the fact that he had worked so long in the 
cause and was so prominent in the fight for a more sensible way 
to settle international disputes, we find him turning tail ,and in 
a few weeks allying himself with the man who said he would 
scrap the League of Nations if elected, thus helping to destroy 
the work which he declared was as fundamental as the Constitu¬ 
tion and in which he had been interested for years. 

If ex-President Taft had been some underling who stood 
abashed before presidents and senators, there might have been 
some excuse for his course; or had he been in a small company 
of persons of questionable ability and character, the case would 
have been different; but he knew that the great majority of good 
men and women were heartily in favor of the League of Nations 
because it was the only plan that was ever before the nations by 
which they might abolish the demon of war. After Mr. Taft 
was admitted to the bar in 1880 he had 'been respectively judge 
of the superior court in Ohio, United States solicitor general, 
judge of the United States circuit court, dean of the law school 
of the University of Cincinnati, chairman of the Philippine 
commission, Secretary of War, President of the United States 
and a defeated candidate to succeed himself. He had all these 
positions before he was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme 
Court by President Harding. It would not be treating him 
fairly nor the positions he has held and now holds to say that 
he lacked either ability or experience to have an intelligent 
opinion on the subject to which he had given much and careful 
attention. Neither would it be treating him fairly to say that he 
did not believe in the cause which he so ably advocated. He was 
clearly displeased that Germany showed no interest in the con- 


56 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


ferenee called by the Emperor of Russia to consider disarma¬ 
ment, and he was not satisfied that his own country was likely 
to take Germany’s place in 1921. 

Mr. Taft could not flop over night without giving some ex¬ 
cuse for his sudden change of heart on so important a question 
as the League of Nations. If he changed front on a question that 
he said was fundamental and which he had advocated for years 
because he heard the party call, it simply proves that party 
spirit makes moral cowards of the strongest men, and that women 
who are coming upon the political stage should not ally them¬ 
selves with any political party and thus become its slaves as 
most men have done. 

It is true that Mr. Taft knew Chief Justice White was dead. 
It is also true that he knew the man who was elected President 
would fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court bench, but I draw 
no conclusions from that. I simply know that for some reason 
Mr. Taft suddenly left the men he had been working with for 
years in what he said was the greatest cause ever promulgated 
by man, to go with those who had never been friendly to the 
cause he had espoused. The reason which he gives for his sud¬ 
den change I find in a telegram from Seattle under date of Oc¬ 
tober 11, 1920. He says: “I am for Harding because I am a 
Republican. ’ ’ 

This, then, may be considered as his explanation. Though 
he said the League of Nations was fundamental, and was above 
party and a man would be justified in leaving his party to 
support the League, he was first a party man and afterward 
a man of peace. 

He says further that there are other men in the United 
States whose vision of the League is perhaps clearer than his 
own, but he does not mention any of them. Mr. Taft would have 
resented the insinuation, or his friends for him, had any one 
said that another had a clearer view regarding the League of 


PROMINENT REPUBLICANS FOR THE LEAGUE 57 

Nations than he, and they would have had a right to resent such 
an assertion made for any other man in this country or any 
other, had Mr. Taft stood consistently for what he so long and 
ably advocated, and declared was fundamental to the interests 
of the world. 

My object in referring to prominent men is to show that 
most of our men are more or less influenced by party spirit and 
that they cannot be fair when party interests are at stake. Our 
vice president is supposed to be as fair as the average man, and 
yet is he not influenced against conscience and judgment by 
partisanship ? When President Wilson came from abroad in 
1919, Calvin Coolidge was Governor of Massachusetts. He was 
not called upon to say anything untruthful, and it would be 
far from my intentions to insinuate that he did say what he did 
not believe. He, however, grew very enthusiastic over Mr. Wil¬ 
son’s home coming and following is a part of the speech made on 
that occasion: 

“We welcome him with a reception more marked than that 
which was accorded to General George Washington, more united 
than could at any time during his life been given Abraham 
Lincoln. We welcome him as the representative of a great 
people, as a great statesman; as one to whom we have confided 
our destiny, and one whom we assure we will support in the 
future in the working out of that destiny as Massachusetts has 
supported him in the past.” 

Now the League was just as good in 1920 as it was in 1919, 
but Governor Coolidge, who thought it all right, closed up like 
a clam when he found it was to be made a partisan issue. 

Herbert Hoover was one of the Republicans who was out¬ 
spoken for the League of Nations. He had been given an im¬ 
portant position by President Wilson, and is a very capable man, 
though he would have shown better taste by refraining from 


58 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


bald criticism of the man who called him to play an important 
part in the world’s great tragedy. Hoover hardly knew whether 
he was Democrat or Republican when talked of for President, 
which may have been to his credit, but he was supposed to be 
strong for the League, as were thousands of other Republicans 
until late in 1920 when it was settled definitely that the candi¬ 
date for President was in favor of scrapping it. Mr. Hoover at 
first was in sympathy with Mr. Taft when he said that the 
League transcended in importance any domestic issues and would 
require one who so believes to ignore party ties and vote for this 
great boon for this country and the world. They both spoke 
before the crack of the party wdiip, and perhaps neither of them 
knew before that he was bound hand and foot by party spirit. 

According to the Literary Digest Mr. Hoover is positive that 
whether it is today or ten years hence, we will, if we want peace, 
ratify the treaty of Versailles in some form. According to the 
same authority, he said a little later, that all talk of a new treaty 
is “bunk,’’ to revise the function for preventing war is possible. 
The treaty of Versailles is the web that holds France together. 
When asked by the New York World , which was for Hoover 
first, last and all the time for President, for an expression of 
opinion on some public' questions, among them the League of 
Nations, Mr. Hoover is represented as saying: “If the League 
goes over to the presidential election, then I must vote for the 
party that stands for the League.” Did he do as he said he 
would ? 

Herbert Hoover’s declaration of 1920—that President Hard¬ 
ing would bring the United States into the League of Nations— 
was brought up recently when asked to “square” his position 
with the definite repudiation of the League. 

Hamilton Holt, late editor of the Independent , a few days 
ago asked Mr. Hoover the following question, to which I have 
seen no reply: 


PROMINENT REPUBLICANS FOR THE LEAGUE 59 

‘‘I respectfully ask you if you are going to continue to 
submit to the defeat of your aspirations and the aspirations of 
many hundreds of thousands of your followers ? I cannot con¬ 
ceive that you will remain silent on this great issue and leave 
the inference that you are willing to subordinate your convic¬ 
tions to personal or party advantage. 

The Continent of October 20, 1920, says that in order to 
stop the defection from the Republican ranks on account of the 
League of Nations thirty-one prominent Republicans who had 
actively supported the League came out and announced that 
they would support Harding. Among these were William H. 
Taft, Elihu Root, Herbert Hoover and Charles E. Hughes. 
There was not one among the thirty-one who was not the mental 
equal of Mr. Harding and many of them his superior; not one 
who did not have as good a right to his opinion on all questions. 
The only advantage he had over them was, if he should be 
elected he would have the appointing power. This sometimes 
makes a vast difference. It is true that Mr. Taft is now Chief 
Justice, Mr. Hoover is Secretary of Commerce, Mr. Hughes is 
Secretary of State, Mr. Root admits that he is too old to expect 
anything, while the League of Nations is scrapped as to the 
United States and peace among the nations of the earth is still 
an “iridescent” dream. It is an old saying that the learned pate 
ducks to the golden fool. It would be just as true to say that the 
learned pate ducks to the appointing power. 

Many prominent Republicans were earnest and outspoken 
for the League until after they heard the crack of the party 
whip, but I should have the fairness to say that President Hard-. 
ing never pretended to be a friend of the peace cause, and he 
had never connected himself with it as a leader or even a fol¬ 
lower. If the party was for it, so was Harding; if the party 
bosses were against it, so was Harding. He never went any 
further than the party. It is true he was forced to declare him- 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


«0 

self in favor of some sort of an association behind which all 
Americans could stand. 

Nothing that Candidate Harding said, after saying that he 
would turn his back on the League of Nations, ought to have 
alarmed any one who was opposed to it, but what he said of 
forming an association as one of his very first acts, if he should 
be elected, was sufficient to throw the irreconcilables into a 
swither. They could see no difference between a League and an 
association, and they didn’t want a League under a different 
name. They were smart enough to know that there is but little 
in names, and, if an association took in all nations, as it must 
do to be of any use, that would simply be a League under an¬ 
other name. 

President Harding expressed surprise just before his elec¬ 
tion to find that there could be any shadow of doubt as to his 
position on the world sentiment to discourage war and advance 
civilization. He therefore came out with five propositions telling 
where he and presumably those who nominated him stood on the 
question before the people. In his second proposition he says 
that the old order of things is done for, not only in America, but 
throughout the world. Now I ask what is the old order to which 
Harding referred? Of course all will agree that he meant af¬ 
fairs of government. Was the old order not one of force and 
fear, a government of bayonets so old that memory fails to recall 
its beginning? Has that been done for or has any effort been 
made by any one in authority in this country to introduce the 
new order? In his first message as the head of the army and 
navy he mobilized all material and human agencies for self de¬ 
fense. Was anything new about that? Has there been from 
that time to the present one single syllable uttered by any one 
in authority to indicate a new basis? We have flocked by our¬ 
selves and in that has there been anything to show that w r e be¬ 
lieve in peace rather than war? 


CHAPTER IV. 


Women of the World For The League. 

"If we do not destroy war, war will destroy us." 

—Lord Bryce. 

It is too late for woman to say that she does not want to 
assume the duties of citizenship, for, willing or unwilling, citizen¬ 
ship has been added to her duties. Whether she is to take a citi¬ 
zen’s interest in subjects of importance or whether she is to re¬ 
main passive only when she or some friend wants a political 
favor depends entirely upon her. Now that she has become a 
citizen it is but proper to ask what she will do. Will she follow 
in man’s footsteps and vote for a little more tariff this year to 
please those who make things to sell, and a little less next time 
because consumers complain? Will she favor a large military 
appropriation this year because the ghost of self defense is 
flaunted enthusiastically, and less next year because the imag¬ 
inary foe seems farther off? Will she support with zeal measures 
when offered by a particular party and look with suspicion or 
even hostility on those offered by another party? Men have 
been doing this for years, and if women propose doing the same 
thing it w^as a mistake to add to the expense without gain to the 
service. 

Women who were most active in behalf of suffrage had no 
hesitation in saying that men had been tried and found wanting 
in some very important matters and that women should be given 
a chance. In nothing have men failed so wofully as in their 
dealing with other nations, and now is woman’s opportunity to 
show that she can do better. If she can settle this important 


<62 THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 

matter satisfactorily, to her shall belong the honor and credit. 
Whether Christian, Mohammedan or Pagan, women know that 
there is a much cheaper and better way of settling international 
disputes than by war. If there are any women who are indifferent 
on the subject of peace and war they should read Maude Roy- 
den’s book, “Sex and Common Sense.” She is the only woman 
preacher in England and one of the professors at Oxford. She 
says that there are 2,000,000 more women than men in England 
and no doubt the discrepancy in this country is due largely to 
war. There are 1,000,000 more women than men in Turkey, 
and, following the example of the United States, the leading 
nation of the world, the Turks want young men for cannon 
fodder under the guise of self defense. As one of the methods 
to accomplish the result the Turks have readopted polygamy. 
It was seriously asserted by some of the alleged statesmen of 
Christian countries shortly after the close of the World War 
that polygamy was necessary owing to the scarcity of fathers, 
but I am informed that their suggestions were not accepted. In 
some countries illegitimacy was abolished, not for the reason 
that it was removing a stigma for which the child was in no wise 
responsible, but to encourage bastardy for the purpose of bring¬ 
ing more boys into the world. Is it surprising that self-asserting 
young men have come to the conclusion that they want no more 
war and that those who make the wars must fight them? 

Everybody knew and felt at the close of the great war 
when more than twenty Christian nations were killing, burning 
and destroying one another, that it was time now, if not before, 
when war should cease. They knew that war had done infinitely 
more to upset the world morally, financially and religiously than 
anything elese that had ever ocurred. Even General John S. 
Pershing, who is at the head of our army, is reported as saying: 

“The lessons of the last six months should be enough to 
convince everybody of the danger of nations striding up and 


WOMEN OF THE WORLD FOR THE LEAGUE 


63 


•down the earth armed to the teeth. . . . Unless some such 

move is made (reduction of armaments) we may well ask our¬ 
selves . . . whether we are doomed to go headlong down 

through destructive war and darkness into barbarism. ” 

This doesn’t sound at all like the Pershing who recently 
made speeches over the country complaining bitterly of the 
pacifists and suggesting a radical cure for them, but, as I find 
the eiuotation in reprint, I accept it as genuine. I take it that 
the only difference is between then and now. Then everybody 
was saddened and made to think by the scenes of slaughter and 
destruction so recently caused by war, but now selfishness, money 
and glory are again coming to the front, and the ghost of self 
defense is again made the scarecrow by which this country has 
always been governed. 

As time goes on the memory of wrongs grows less distinct 
and the sooner the great question of peace is settled the better. 
Only a short time ago the Kaiser was condemned by nearly all 
Christendom as responsible for a war that brought trouble and 
misery to the entire world. Thousands wanted to shoot, hang or 
otherwise dispose of the erstwhile Emperor, lacking only the 
opportunity. Now he is faring sumptuously every day, and 
making an enormous sum in writing for a syndicate. He re¬ 
cently married a woman said to be young, rich and charming, 
while the poor devils who kept his military machine, ready to 
fight on his slightest order, must suffer as long as they live for 
his wickedness. 

It was announced at the close of the war that a demand 
would be made on the Queen of the Netherlands that the Kaiser 
be given over for punishment. I take it upon myself to say that 
no such demand was made or ever will be made with any idea 
of its being honored. Why? Simply because the Kaiser only 
claimed what all great rulers claim, and was doing what all were 


64 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


doing. As the moralist looks at it lie was guilty of a heinous 
crime; as the warriors regard it he was simply unfortunate and 
lost in the court of war to which he appealed. He impoverished 
the people by building all sorts of instruments to take life and 
destroy property because he wanted an adequate army and navy; 
but all rulers are striving for that and they keep their subjects 
in fear of their neighbors so they will pay for dreadnaughts, air 
ships and submarines, even if they have to borrow the money 
and depend on charity to keep some of their people from starv¬ 
ing. The whole system is based on cowardice and fear. Even 
the Kaiser wanted an army and navy simply for self defense as 
all other military men do, if we believe what they expect us to. 

Ward, in his “Psychic Factors of Civilization,’’ says: “It 
is a leading feminine characteristic to be always on the defensive. 
The great end of female action is protection. With the safety of 
the future members of the race in her charge the mother has 
developed a mental constitution which is ever alert to perceive 
and ward off the least danger. She never takes any risks. Non- 
seafaring people often notice that old sea captains always choose 
the safer of two courses, even where either would seem to be 
perfectly secure. This apparent timidity does not seem to be in 
harmony with the intrepidity of these hardy mariners, but it 
results from a settled rule of life to choose the safest way. Now, 
the female mind possesses this quality of caution as part of its 
constitution and it applies to everything that is done.” 

We certainly need more caution, which may be another 
name for common sense, in our dealings with other nations. We 
may have secured just what we need when women became citi¬ 
zens. They are not so wedded to political parties as to think 
that they must do all their political thinking and acting in ac¬ 
cordance with political platforms. The millions of Club women 
who have declared that war is too expensive, cruel and unjust to 
live longer, are not to be dissuaded from their opinion by the 


WOMEN OF THE WORLD FOR THE LEAGUE 65 

cry that they must follow the party or be considered sore heads. 
They are not to be kept in line by appeals to party fealty nor 
have they yet learned that all reforms must be made within 
party lines. Women act on the reasonable theory that the only 
way to get what is right is to join others who want the right, no 
matter whether in one party or the other or whether it be a 
party for the purpose. 

Our new citizens were thrown into the last presidential cam¬ 
paign without time to digest the important issues involved. 
When more than thirty prominent men of the Republican party 
who had been enthusiastic for the League of Nations, men who 
had been Presidents, Supreme Court Judges, cabinet officers, 
senators, etc., came out in a public address and declared the 
surest way to secure the League of Nations or something better 
was to vote for Mr. Harding, the new citizens took them at their 
word, only to learn that no league was intended; and that as an 
afterthought five nations were asked to scrap a part of their 
battleships. Four of these nations had already agreed by treaty 
to do more than they were asked by Mr. Harding to do in what 
is called a gentleman’s agreement. There is a general feeling, 
much stronger now than at first, that this was purely an economic 
measure and that it amounts to nothing toward preventing war. 
Of course anything that gets the rulers of different countries 
better acquainted will have its tendency toward peace, but that 
the scrapping of a few obsolete war ships was simply and purely 
an economic measure is clearly shown in another chapter. 

Never had a woman with ability a better chance to distin¬ 
guish herself in doing good than she has right now either in 
Congress or out. She can speak for the peace of the world and 
no one dares raise a voice against it. A woman to do good either 
in Congress or out for the peace cause should have ability, cour¬ 
age and assurance and be enthusiastic. If she does not get favor¬ 
able results among those who control she should promptly find 


66 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


out why and let the people at home know why. Women brought 
both prohibition and woman suffrage to pass before they had a 
vote. Men voted for both because they feared to do otherwise, 
and they will vote for peace when they know that every vote 
they cast on any important question must be considered on its 
merits rather than from the standpoint of a political party. 

It will not do to say that the question is settled and the 
League a thing of the past. The question of peace or war is still 
a live issue and will be until it is settled right. A league of 
nations in some form, whether it be the League of 1920 or some 
other league, will be before the world until the question is de¬ 
cided of doing without war which is the crime of crimes only 
because there is no law to so define it. 

Hon. James M. Cox, wno was the late Democratic candidate 
for President, openly espoused the League of Nations during the 
campaign. He made an able speech recently before the Jackson 
Day Club at Columbus, 0., and made it clear that the League 
of Nations would be the next great issue between the Democratic 
and Republican parties. I give a brief extract from his address: 

“But the League aoesn't die! It continues to confound its 
enemies. When Austria seemed doomed, suffering from the after¬ 
math of war, when no plan and no agency was in sight to save 
her, the League of Nations performed the seemingly impossible 
task of preservation. 

“It is significant that Mr. Hoover, in his survey of European 
countries that are economically sick, does not include Austria, 
although Switzerland, Holland and Great Britain are in his list. 

“And now Hungary, too, is being saved by the League. The 
means of salvation in both these countries demonstrates that 
there is something besides altruism that holds together this great 
institution of peace. Budgets have been balanced, currency 
stabilized, and hunger and starvation halted. 

“When war w r as threatened between Greece and Italy and 
skeptic and conspirator alike believed that the day of justifica- 


WOMEN OF THE WORLD FOR THE LEAGUE 


67 


tion was at hand, the League averted hostilities. It was the great 
controlling force which removed an international tension in ten 
days’ time. 

“Never before in all history had the means been provided 
for the assembling of the public opinion of the world. It was a 
■sublime tribute to the power of moral force. No modern Caesar 
dared defy it.” 

That the League is very much alive may be gathered from 
the following telegram sent to President Harding, signed by 
George W. Wickersham, President of the Council; Everett Colby, 
Chairman of the Executive Committee and William E. 'Short, 
Executive Director: 

“In your speech at St. Louis on June 21 you said, ‘The 
League of Nations is as dead as slavery.’ There are millions of 
people in the United States who differ from you. 

“In the few weeks since our President, Justice John H. 
Clarke, made his New York speech in favor of joining the 
League, those who believe American membership still an issue 
have created an organization in thirty-six States and additional 
branches in cities and counties. 

“As an indication of the number and character of those 
who believe this issue still alive, it may be stated that fifty-one 
American Protestant bishops have already joined, nor do the 
bishops stand alone, for every Protestant church in America has 
declared for American membership, multitudes of Catholic clergy 
and laity are working for it, and the Jewish rabbis and people 
are nearly solid in its support. 

“The faculties and students in our higher institutions of 
learning are all but unanimously for the League, and a cause that 
has their support is far from being ‘as dead as slavery.’ 

“Support given by labor, women, agriculture, and a large 
part of business to American membership makes the issue very 
much alive. 

“You declared on Oct. 2, 1920, that the League of Nations 
was ‘already scrapped’ and not worth noticing, and your admin¬ 
istration began by trying to ignore its existence. But the logic 
of events has led our Government, step by step, to take part in 


68 THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 

the great humanitarian work that the League is doing and we 
are now proposing to go into the Permanent Court of Interna¬ 
tional Justice, which the League alone was able to bring into 
existence after successive administrations had vainly tried since 
1897 to do so. We applaud you for your enlightened attitude 
on these questions and feel certain that the manifest impossibility 
of the United States standing aloof from the rest of the world 
to which you have lately so feelingly referred, will finally lead 
our country into full association with the League. 

“We are certain you will not allow your concern for har¬ 
mony within your party to lead you into the unfortunate posi¬ 
tion of forgetting your party and personal pledges. 

“On Oct. 9, 1920, your present Secretary of Commerce, 
Herbert Hoover, expressed the convictions and feelings of mil¬ 
lions of American voters in the following words: 

“ ‘The Republican Party has pledged itself by its platform, 
by the action of its majority in the Senate, by the repeated state¬ 
ments of Senator Harding, that it undertakes the fundamental 
mission to put into living being the principle of an organized 
association of nations for preservation of peace. The carrying 
out of that promise is the test of the entire sincerity, integrity 
and statesmanship of the Republican party. 

“ ‘If, by any chance, it should fail, it will leave a deeper 
wound in’the Ameri can people than the temporary delay in our 
adherence to a League of Nations. It will have destroyed the 
confidence of our people in party government. 

“ ‘The issue of this principle of proper organized action of 
nations to prevent war will not down. It belongs to no party and 
no creed. It will be the critical issue of forward-looking men 
in all nations until it succeeds in finally overthrowing militarism 
as a basis of world relations. ’ 

“Believing that Mr. Hoover’s sentiments express the opin¬ 
ion of a great majority of the people, we cannot allow your 
statements regarding the League to go unchallenged.” 

I have assumed that the women will have a large share in 
bringing peace because they suffer most in war which may come, 
more cruel and brutal than ever, unless a nation-wide agreement 
is reached for something better. The woman who loves a coun- 


WOMEN OF THE WORLD FOR THE LEAGUE 


69 


try that requires an unnecessary sacrifice of life more than she 
loves the boys to whom she has given life, and whom she has 
nurtured from infancy, is lacking in one of the strongest in¬ 
stincts of motherhood. I am pleased that Judge John H. Clarke 
has taken the presidency of the League of Nations. He was an 
honored member of the United States Supreme Court, but re¬ 
signed in order to be free to take a more active part in questions 
that concern humanity. He was tendered a banquet in Boston 
at which he is reported as making the following remarks: 

“I wish also to state publicly that I am so convinced that 
the welfare of my country depends on international co-operation, 
which is possible only through the existing League of Nations, 
that I shall not in the future support or vote for any national, 
state or congressional candidate who is not pledged by platform 
or personally to favor entrance of our country into that League. 
I know many men and women in both parties who are making 
this resolution. Women voters have it within their power to 
put the United States in the League of Nations before 1924. 
“If the existing League of Nations needs amending, ‘American¬ 
ize it/ and get behind it, or if you think it unwise or im¬ 
possible, go to work and devise and advocate a better plan, but 
do not under any circumstances sit idly by and permit your 
country to drift into the desolating calamity of another war.” 

“Our association is already organized in every State in the 
Union, and long before this time next year we shall have an or¬ 
ganization in every congressional district in the country. ’ ’ 

I trust that women may see and use the power which Judge 
Clarke says is theirs. Everything indicates that they are for 
the party that will soonest and most certainly bring peace. As a 
rule, almost without exception, the women who understand the 
situation think it necessary that the United States should take 
an active part in establishing peace among the nations. All 
other countries look to us as the nation that can speak as having 
only a general interest, and we are in duty bound to take this 
interest for the good it will do to others directly and ourselves, 


70 THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 

at least, indirectly. If we could simply change the appropriation 
from the purpose of destruction to that of construction the gain 
would be evident to every citizen. 

As is well known, the League is a going concern without the 
aid of the United States, though there is no denial of the fact 
that its influence is crippled by the leading nation’s holding 
aloof. Some people naturally think there must be something 
wrong with the League of Nations or this great nation that has 
always pretended to be for peace and all that is good would 
be a member. They do not see politics as we see it and know it, or 
they would no longer wonder why this nation that had so large 
a part in bringing the League before the world is not among 
its members. 

The cause of peace will have an able ally in Miss Florence 
E. Allen, who is one of the judges of the Supreme Court of 
Ohio. She was the first woman to be elected to a judgeship in 
the United States, being one of the common pleas judges in 
the city of Cleveland. Her success attracted attention, and last 
fall she was elected to the highest legal position in the state. 
That she is right on the peace question it is only necessary to 
know that she has made some very strong addresses in favor of 
declaring war an outlaw, since she was elected to the Supreme 
Court. 

Miss Mary McDowell returned but recently from an ex¬ 
tended trip to Europe, paying particular attention to those coun¬ 
tries from which most of our immigrants come. She is at the 
head of the Chicago settlement work and has charge of the 
stock yards district. She is very earnest in her work and when 
in Europe spent some time in Geneva at the headquarters of the 
League of Nations. Like all others who have studied the subject 
of the world’s peace, with an honest desire to see it established 


WOMEN OF THE WORLD FOR THE LEAGUE 


71 


throughout the world, she was very much impressed with the 
men who have the peace of the world so largely in their keeping. 
If rulers over the world were as earnest and able as those in 
charge of the League of Nations at Geneva, wars and the cost 
of preparing to fight would soon end. 

Miss McDowell was in Geneva long enough to see that the 
League is doing a very important work. It is making a vigorous 
effort to repress the white slave trade in different countries, with 
fine results. It has stopped a large part of the opium trade 
which has been one of the worst curses of the old world and 
threatens even the United States. The League has returned 
more than half a million men to their homes to be a constructive 
rather than a destructive force. It has reduced the traffic in 
arms and munitions of war. If it succeeds in its hope of elimi¬ 
nating entirely this traffic, it will eradicate the desire to fight, 
for it is well known that nations, like individuals, are prone to 
resort to violence according to the degree in which they are pre¬ 
pared for it. The League is studying disease as no single nation 
has ever attempted. The Christian Century , an undenomina¬ 
tional religious paper published at Chicago, speaks as follows of 
Miss McDowell: 

“One of the pathetic things chronicled by Miss McDowell is 
the fact that in sending for information from the different coun¬ 
tries regarding conditions prevailing in relation to the above 
mentioned and other activities, time after time the documents 
of the League bore the record ‘No reply from' the United States.’ 
Surely this refusal to give information from official sources in 
our government is not only a discourtesy to an international 
organization, but is a serious hindrance to the success of a great 
work in behalf of humanity. To be so sensitive to the very 
name of the League of Nations that we cannot even answer cour¬ 
teously worded inquiries regarding prevalent conditions which 
the League is seeking to remedy is quite inconsistent with Ameri¬ 
can good will.” 


72 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


The same paper recently contained the following editorial 
under the heading, “The Disillusionment of War”: 

“A few years ago we were expecting a new heaven and a 
new earth. And all by the grace of war. Back in 1913 we knew 
better. But as the war passion swelled within us, and we^ glori¬ 
fied through ignorance and prejudice events which were essen¬ 
tially sordid and debasing, we actually convinced ourselves that 
the malignities of the monster could be tamed, and that out of 
destruction would proceed healing and upbuilding. We looked 
for meat from the devourer. We supposed that under a wash 
of rainwater the leopard’s spots would permanently disappear. 
We supposed hell would beget heaven. And today we have the 
reward of our folly. 

“The disillusionments of war should inspire, the present 
campaign against its repetition until that campaign shall be¬ 
come perpetual and unremitting, absolute proof against all 
, illusions and seductions in the future, however unexpectedly 
sprung upon us or our successors, or however sedulously the 
propaganda glorifying this monstrous thing may be pressed. 
It is true that peace sentiment prior to 1914 was largely senti¬ 
ment, even in this country. In Europe it scarcely existed at all. 
It exists there today in all too scant supply. The sufferings of 
Europe make it seem incredible that any should yet hesitate in 
his allegiance to peace. 

“Yet in the end we can depend upon our own discernments 
more safely than upon theirs, if we will clarify and deepen them 
by real knowledge of and sympathy with these peoples and their 
estate. War is no rational nor worthy resort even in their 
case. They are hopeless of more rational means of curing the 
age-long ills from which they have suffered. We must find a 
rational hope and share it with these hopeless ones. Ways and 
means? They are indeed difficult to discover. This intolerable 
delay? Aye, the paltering, puttering, poltroon procrastinations 
of the old diplomacy are quite intolerable. But the alternative 
is not more war. This delusion must be stifled at any and every 
cost. War is not the solution of Europe’s problems, nor the cure 
of any people’s woes, now or ever while the world lasts. Of so 
much we can be sure, and in this conviction we should stand in- 


WOMEN OF THE WORLD FOR THE LEAGUE 


73 


flexibly, unflinchingly as we face Europe. Our sins of omission 
and of commission in our relations with Europe cry aloud to 
heaven, hut we can never stifle that cry by yielding in this 
matter.” 

Miss McDowell, like others who have seen the League at 
work, has only praise for the men and what they are doing. No 
one who has seen the men who compose the working force of the 
League can doubt their earnestness and efficiency. Some re¬ 
member that the President turned has back on the League and 
said that it was rejection and not interpretation that he wanted. 
These say that the League is a good thing, but we have nothing 
to gain, when it is acknowledged on all hands that more depends 
on us than any other nation for keeping the peace of the world! 
Are we supposed to favor nothing unless we receive at least an 
equal share of the benefit? This course of reasoning would debar 
forever all foreign work, missionary or otherwise, from among 
us who may be more favorably situated, but, perhaps no more 
deserving than those who need our help. “Though we give our 
bodies to be burned and have not charity it availeth us nothing. 
Where is the Christian charity of the man or woman who will 
do nothing for another, unless he is sure he can benefit himself 
at the same time? In the language of the book which our Presi¬ 
dent and a majority of our lawmakers take as their rule of 
faith, “If ye do good to them which do good to you what thank 
have ye, for sinners do even the same?” Is it the doctrine of 
the Christian or any other church that we shall take part in 
nothing that does not profit us? Many men and women have 
seen the League at work and the universal opinion is that it is 
a benefit to all who take part. By helping others we help our¬ 
selves. To say that we would derive no benefit from joining the 
League is to say that we are entirely different from others, but 
wherein do we differ? The congressional committee reported as 
follows about the middle of January, 1923: 


74 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


“Never in the history of this country has it had so great a 
military strength in time of peace as today. Never before has 
the country possessed so many military resources in trained men 
and material. Our regular army now has double the number of 
highly trained commissioned officers that it had before the World 
War, and an enlisted strength 25 per cent greater than before 
the war. The National Guard is nearly 100 per cent larger than 
before the war and a far greater military asset to the Nation 
than ever before. 

“Supplementary to these active forces are 69,000 men in 
the reserve officers training corps, a portion of whom are given 
field training each year, and 110,000 young men in the schools 
and colleges of the country are receiving military training and 
instruction under the reserve officers’ training corps, direction 
of the War Department, and during current year 22,000 civilians 
underwent military training under the direction of the War 
Department and this bill provides for the military training of 
30,000 civilians during the next fiscal year.” 

As far as I have seen, no excuse or apology is made for the 
large appropriation. Possibly the committee takes the right 
view of the case and decides that no excuse will justify it in 
making so large an appropriation for war at a time when no war 
is threatened from any quarter. 

Miss Ida Tarbell is of course opposed to war. I do not know 
of any woman who is credited with mentality who is not, but 
she takes a somewhat different view from that generally held. 
She seems to hold the idea that women are not so much opposed 
to war as we credit them with being, that there is more fiction 
than truth in the idea that woman is opposed to killing human 
beings in war. There may be some giddy women who see only 
the uniform and think nothing of the expense and blood of war ; 
who think that they are making sacrifices for the government 
when they are only playing the fool at the expense of others; 
but I am loath to believe that there are many who look on war 


WOMEN OF THE WORLD FOR THE LEAGUE 


75> 

with any degree of patience, but regard it as a calamity which 
wiser government might have prevented. 

Heretofore women have had no voice in the matter of war 
or any other public question. She is now a citizen and is sup¬ 
posed to do some thinking and that is all any one needs on the 
subject of war. The only great war in which women have had a 
prominent part was the World War, which was to be the last one. 
In that she had but a sort of Hobson’s choice, for she had to be 
for the war or be looked upon as against the government itself. 
Now everybody is for peace, even the war men, if one can believe 
that they are for peace when preparing for war. Following is 
MissTarbell’s sensible observations on the subject: 

“Is it true that women hate war? Or is that one of those 
human fictions that are accepted because so often repeated ? 

“She should hate it. War destroys the very reason for her 
being—her child. It breaks down the center which she creates 
for the care of this child. But, through all the ages, women 
have sacrificed sons and homes to the God of War and they have 
called their sacrifices glorious. When the God of War came they 
rejoiced in his trappings, his music, his uniform. And after he 
had passed on they have done more to keep alive the hatreds that 
brought him into the field than man himself. 

“If the avowed hatred of women for war is to be more than 
a barren emotion, her attack must take on new and more prac¬ 
tical forms. She cannot end war by passing resolutions, organiz¬ 
ing peace societies, putting up posters—she must get down to 
cases. No war without its cause. Disputes, misunderstandings, 
conflicting interests, world old prejudices, fanaticism, jealousy, 
greed—these are the seeds of war. 

“If woman means it when she says that she hates war, she 
has a first imperative duty, and that is, to see to it that these 
things are watched and uprooted as they raise their ugly heads. 

No journal that has come under my observation has con¬ 
tained more hard blows for the cause of peace than has the 
Pictorial Review of New York. It is an interesting study to not? 


76 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


the varying conditions of mind displayed at different times by 
Ida Clyde Clarke, who has done much of the editorial writing. 
About the time of the Washington Conference she evidently 
thought that the strong speeches of distinguished men from lead¬ 
ing nations would settle the question in the interest of permanent 
peace. The December number, 1921, was printed about the time 
the conference was held. That number spoke eloquently of the 
meeting and gave it high praise for the good work it was called 
to do. In an open letter to the men assembled at Washington 
the Review said: 

“If you men of the International Conference will but sound 
the call there are millions of men and women in every country 
who will answer. There are millions of people who passionately 
long for peace and for the alleviation of the pain and suffering 
incident to war. A Peace army would not have to be drafted. 
How gladly would the people volunteer if you men leaders 
would but sound the rallying cry! 

“The opportunity is now before you. You can reason to¬ 
gether calmly. No din of war distracts you. If you are big 
enough in your souls and free enough from prejudice and cant, 
you can settle your national differences on a high and firm basis. 
Such things have been done. We have a transcontinental boun¬ 
dary over three thousand miles long between the United States 
and Canada upon which there has not been for a hundred years 
need for a single gun, a single soldier, or a single fort. 

“For four hundred years the leaders of men have been 
saying with their tongues that right-thinking nations should ar¬ 
bitrate their differences just as right-thinking individuals do. 

“Do not tell us it can not be done. Within the last century 
two hundred and fifty international disputes have been settled 
by arbitration. It is within your power to make arbitration the 
rule for the settling of all international disputes, and the time 
has now come to do so in order that the barbarism of wav shall 
forever be relegated into the limbo of forgotten things.” 

At different times during the following year the Review 
spoke of the work of the Conference and had but scant patience 


WOMEN OF THE WORLD FOR THE LEAGUE 77 

with those who attempted to belittle its work by skepticism of the 
good results to come from the gentlemen’s agreement. It acted 
the part of the true friend of peace who is anxious to accept 
much but willing to take little, if that is all that can be obtained. 
When those who were supposed to be strong for peace began to 
prepare for war, the old saying that hope deferred maketh the 
heart sick seemed to take possession of the editorial writer for 
the Review, and we find the following in the January, 1923, 
number: 

‘ ‘ The dawn of a new year is breaking. Is it to bring peace— 
that universal and lasting peace we have talked so bravely about 
—or is it to bring war, more hideous, more cruel, than that we 
have just struggled through? 

“In God’s name, can not the great nations of the earth and 
the millions of Christians in our churches throughout the world 
“stand by” each other in a thunderous declaration that there 
can not be. there must not be, another war? 

“ Turkey has scarcely one-third the population of the United 
States. In Greece there are less than three million people. Are 
the giant nations of the earth going to be stupid enough and 
blind enough and weak enough to be dragged into another car¬ 
nage because of the disagreements between two minor nations? 
Why didn’t they get together and stop the row in the first place 
instead of taking sides one against the other? 

“Who would have believed a year ago that such questions as 
these would be raised again in our generation? Then we were 
comfortably anaesthetized by hypnotic oratory of the picked 
statesmen of the world gathered together at Washington for the 
purpose of making future wars impossible. 

“Women everywhere were weeping for their lost ones, 
pleading for peace, and promising with united voices to stand 
now and forever against war. 

“The churches were making Christlike pronouncements for 
peace, while doing their best to bind up the cruel wounds of war. 

“During the past year we have had so many international 
conferences and councils as to how the thing already decided 
upon was to be accomplished, that their deliberations have lost 


78 the league of nations 

their hectic wartime news value, and front-page space is allotted 
to them grudgingly. 

“Most of us have long since lost interest in the how of the 
thing." We’ve trusted to diplomatic technicians to work out the 
details. We have rested secure in the belief that somehow or 
other disarmament was to become a reality and world peace a 
certainty. We believed that the intelligence, the spiritual force, 
the technic power that had been so marvelously mobilized to 
plan and carry through to success the most gigantic war of all 
time would be mobilized for the constructive work of peace. 

“While we are talking of “standing by,” why not “stand 
by” our own agreements with each other? What have all the 
conferences and interallied councils amounted to? Is there 
really any hope of an early and universal peace, or is it only 
morning in the peace movement? Are we women still raising 
cannon-fodder instead of men? 

“We have a right to wonder whether or not the statesmen 
and diplomats put something over on us. They have promised us 
peace; are they going to give us war? These are questions every 
sane man and woman may well ask in the dawn of the new year. 

“We have said all this before. Long before the Washington 
Conference was called to talk about disarmament this magazine 
was pleading for common sense among the nations. Time and 
again these pages have been given over to voice the universal 
cry for peace, and time and again we have reminded the average 
people of America to stay on the job until the task is finished. 

“The great powers of the world have lived under a system 
of armed peace based upon the acceptance of two propositions; 
first, that the surest way to maintain peace is to be always well 
prepared for war; second, in order to be well prepared for war 
a nation must constantly increase its armaments, in order to 
equal or surpass the corresponding force of any or all neighbors 
who might become aggressive. 

“Last year all the fallacies and foolishness of these so-called 
4 principles’ were laid bare, and we began to realize how very 
foolish we had been all these years. Everybody now knows that 
the surest way to maintain peace is to prepare deliberately for 
peace; and that the permanence of peace will be insured by 


WOMEN OF THE WORLD FOR THE LEAGUE 


79 


discarding the apparatus of war, and by providing other ways 
of settling controversies. 

“In two years this country spent more than a million dollars 
an hour for killing and being killed. Our expenditures in the 
last war were sufficient to have carried on the Revolutionary 
war continuously for more than one thousand years. 

“And have we forgotten that other cost—the cruel cost in 
human lives and human suffering? The total number of battle 
deaths of all nations in that war of four years’ duration was 
greater than all the deaths of all nations in the previous one 
hundred years.” 

It is not surprising tnat one who has been alive to what is 
taking place in the government circles of the country should look 
on the rulers of this country as having much the same fears and 
weaknesses as those of other countries. Neither is it to be won¬ 
dered at that one who has been observant of passing events for 
the last few months has doubts as to whether some of the pro¬ 
fessions for peace are not intended in a Pickwickian sense, and 
whether after all we are not to find that this nation with its 
profession for Christianity, peace and culture is not the greatest 
drawback to the world’s progress. There is no room to doubt 
that the United States and England, the English speaking na¬ 
tions, and the two strongest in the world, could maintain peace 
among nations, if they would set about it honestly and earnestly 
English statesmen express the same thought and stand ready to 
do their share. What does the United States say? 


CHAPTER V. 


Civilization Should Unite With Civilization. 

“Women have more of what is called good sense 
than men.” —Hazlitt. 

Considerable 'boasting was done a few months ago about 
the United States having become a world power. We had thrown, 
off swaddling clothes and those timid persons who are far more 
dangerous in the eyes of military men than jingoes might as well 
make up their minds to accept the inevitable, for we were about 
to take our proper place among nations. This may have been 
done for the purpose of reconciling the people to build a few 
more dreadnaughts and make more big guns, for one never 
knows where to look for excuses to add to the munitions of war. 

A few months later these same gentlemen who were talking 
so loudly of our being a world power were badly scared at so 
simple a proposition as Article X of the League of Nations, and 
refused to join as long as that article was made a condition of 
membership. Lawyers and politicians may quibble over the ques¬ 
tion till doomsday and the only thing they can make out of it 
is that under Article X civilization agrees to stand with civiliza¬ 
tion against savagery. The makers of the League used the milder 
term “external aggression,” but war is the proper term and war 
is just now in bad repute all over the world, except with the 
militarists. 

What is the condition of the world since the United States 
refused to join other nations to keep the world's peace? As men 
generally see what they want to see and find what they go to 
find, due allowance should be made. Those who opposed the 


CIVILIZATION SHOULD UNITE WITH CIVILIZATION 81 

League for any reason and went to Europe, came back prepared 
to say that they were glad we did not become a member. Nearly 
all who were opposed to the League admitted it is a good thing 
for Europe but for some reason they did not think according 
to Washington it would be a success for this country. On the 
other hand all who were friendly to the League and went abroad 
came back with praise for what it had done and proposed to do, 
and were sorry that we had not been among its first members. 
They knew that our membership would have been in accordance 
with our long established principles; and they knew the feeling 
toward this, the leading nation. Knowing our President had a 
leading part in preparing the League they could but feel that 
the moral effect of our becoming a member would have been 
beyond price. It is pretty generally believed that had the United 
States become an active member that much, if not all of the 
European trouble would have been avoided. 

Several United States Senators were over, Senator Harris 
among them. He expressed himself as thoroughly convinced that 
we ought to have joined the League promptly and thus finished 
in peace what we helped to do in war. He found the general 
feeling in Europe to be that this country was not treating its 
President fairly nor living up to its traditions by refusing to join 
other nations to abolish war. Senators Caraway, Spencer, Mc¬ 
Kinley, and some others, with five members of the lower house, 
were delegates to the Inter-Parliamentary Congress at Vienna. 
They visited many countries, spent considerable time at Geneva 
where they saw the League of Nations at work and with which 
they were greatly pleased. Senator Caraway had the following 
in the New York Times of October, 1922: 

“I almost forgot the League of Nations, and I will tell about 
that as a conclusion. McKinley and the rest of us had a good 
look at the League machinery, and it impressed us all. I still 


THE DEAGUE OF NATIONS 


think it would be a wise thing if we could find it possible to join 
the League. They would take us into the League on our own 
terms. At least they want our moral support. 

“And when you look at the men who are running the League 
you cannot escape the admission that they are men of such high 
character that we could not possibly incur any danger should we 
go in. I believe the day will come when we will either go in or 
else go to Europe some other way, either via the statesman route 
or else with our naval forces. 

“I could not but be impressed with the sane efforts the 
League is making to bring something like order out of the exist¬ 
ing European chaos. The people of Europe take it very senous- 
ly & They consider it of great potential help. If we had remained 
around much longer I am sure all our Republican members would 
have joined. They were certainly impressed and most favorably. 
They may not admit it just at this season of the year, but it is 
true just the same.” 


Two who went for the express purpose of criticising were 
Senators Johnson and Smoot. Johnson, an irreconcilable, was 
looking for something to assist in his fight for the presidency, 
while Smoot was sent by Harding to find What would help m 
what he expected to be his next campaign. It is unnecessary 
to say that neither had praise for the League, for both found 
what they were looking for. More of them hereafter. 


The opponents of the League must admit that thousands of 
Christians have been butchered in cold blood by the Turks, and 
thousands more rendered homeless, with scarcely a protest from 
some of the great powers, partly because they were willing that 
some one else might do it, and partly for the reason that some 
of the rich people in those countries hold Moslem securities. 
Because the League did not prevent this outbreak in the Far 
East its opponents say we are to be congratulated that we are 
not members; that we have saved ourselves a lot of trouble and 
responsibility by keeping out. But have we escaped one jot or 
tittle of our responsibility? Have we not increased it? If the 


CIVILIZATION SHOULD UNITE WITH CIVILIZATION 83 

United States had been a member of the League no one thinks 
that the unspeakable Turk would have dared to begin any out¬ 
break. Ho would have (been stupid beyond belief had he raised 
any trouble with civilization when he knew that most of the 
world, including the strongest power, had entered into a treaty 
to look after just such things as he has worked repeatedly on 
weaker peoples. We are like the ostrich which is said to hide 
its head in the sand thinking to escape danger; we think to 
escape responsibility by refusing to do our duty. The day is 
past when we can expect to quiet the voice of conscience by ask¬ 
ing whether we are our brother’s keeper. 

The case was so flagrant, and the pressure became so great 
in the United States that President Harding came out with a 
strong appeal, urging the people of the United States to give 
liberally and promptly to save the lives of the victims of the 
Far East. I have no fault whatever to find with the appeal. 
I do not think it possible to make it too strong, but I wonder 
whether the President never thinks that those who are supposed 
to understand the situation might not be right when they say 
that had the United States joined the League of Nations no out¬ 
break would have occurred ? It is at least certain that the case 
would have been no worse, had we been members. Are we satis¬ 
fied to let this thing go on year after year, let the Turk kill 
Christians and burn their houses, and the United States then 
come out with an appeal to the people for money to make good 
the losses? 'The people of this country have too great a moral 
sense of their responsibility to allow this to continue. It would 
be like a strong man letting a helpless neighbor be murdered in 
cold blood and then boasting that he took no part in anything 
that did not concern him. 

Dr. William H. P. Faunce, President of Brown University, 
made an address a few months ago before the Metropolitan Min¬ 
isters’ Conference. He criticised the attitude of President 


84 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


Harding on the League of Nations and declared that the Church 
Peace Union would address 1150,000 ministers and find out 
whether or not they believed Americans should longer hold aloof 
from the remainder of the world. Doctor Faunce said he came 
from his recent trip to Europe with a heavy heart. He went 
over to attend the World Alliance for Peace Through the 
Churches. He said that the line behind civilization in Russia was 
creeping westward and he feared unless something was done by 
civilization Western Europe would succumlb. The Federal Coun¬ 
cil of the Churches of Christ in America, composed of prominent 
ministers, educators, women and business men report that the 
delay of the United States in entering the League, or some simi¬ 
lar association, is responsible for the present chaotic condition of 
a large part of the world, and they recommend that the Federal 
Council of Churches develop in our political leaders a sense of 
the moral responsibility which has fallen to us as a nation. 

I shall give the opinions of some who are not Americans that 
we may see ourselves as others see us. First I quote from Vis¬ 
count Grey who ought to be good authority. He says: “The 
Washington conference is not going to take the place of the 
League of Nations because it has not provided any machinery 
that can deal with the Eluropean question. If there is to be a 
really safe reduction of expenditures on armaments, it must be 
simultaneous, world^wide and comprehensive, and the League of 
Nations has the machinery essential to secure that it be so.’ ’ 

The Auckland Weekly News of New Zealand says: “Euro¬ 
peans may wonder why the League of Nations should be super¬ 
seded when it is in being and when it is willing to change its 
covenant to meet American requirements. They may wonder 
whether Mr. Harding’s candor is not equal to the confession that 
the dangers apprehended in the League are mythical. But 
Europeans finding the burden of international affairs almost in- 


CIVILIZATION SHOULD UNITE WITH CIVILIZATION 85 

supportable without America’s aid, are not indisposed to grant 
some concessions to American particularism. If America de¬ 
sires an association of nations, let it enunciate a plan, then it may 
be hoped that the statesmanship of the Old and New Worlds will 
be large enough to combine the best points of the League Cove¬ 
nant and the American plan.” 

Editor H. W. Stead of the London Twnes took occasion to 
tell some plain truths about us in an address before the Canadian 
Club of Toronto. He said: “Nations like individuals cannot go 
back* on their signatures without losing credit, and the sad truth 
is that in the repudiation of the Versailles treaty the American 
people lost credit throughout the world. When 110,000,000 
sturdy, honest people lose their credit it is a calamity. When 
those people speak the English language and share in general 
the ideas of allegiance to the same kind of laws, and believe the 
same things that are worth while to other English-speaking 
nations, the calamity is doubled. For the United States to dis¬ 
honor the signature of its legal representative in Europe was one 
of the most flattening events in the history of the world.” 

It is generally understood by those Republicans who were 
honestly for the League, but were led to support the Republican 
candidate on the ground that it was the only sure way to get an 
association of nations to prevent war, that he didn’t have any¬ 
thing in the way of a league or association in mind but hit on 
the idea of having five nations join in a gentlemen’s agreement 
to scrap a part of their killing material. Instead of an associa¬ 
tion behind which every American might stand, it dwindled 
down until five nations were considered, a mere pigmy compared 
with the numbers that enrolled under the League of Nations. By 
his own admission he showed that he had but little faith in his 
five-nation agreement. He warned the people not to expect too 
much from it. The true reformer expects too much rather than 


86 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


too little from what lie advocates. Thus taking the President's 
own words we cannot believe that he had much confidence in the 
good to come from the Washington Conference. But I shall 
have more to say of his plan hereafter. 

I am one of millions who have difficulty in reconciling good 
and evil in the same man whether he be considered one of the 
greatest or one of the least. Some of us cannot understand how 
some men can be as good as they profess to be and as their 
friends think they are when they uphold what they admit 
is evil. We cannot comprehend how committing an admitted evil 
to avoid a remotely contingent one can by any system of logic be 
called good, and that is the position of some professing Christians 
in regard to war, though I am pleased to say the number is far 
smaller now than when the world asked for peace. 

We can understand why those who have but little self- 
respect and none for the dictates of morality and decency; who 
tote pistols to defend themselves from provoked insults, who are 
known as toughs, should advocate the army and navy to kill those 
whom they deem enemies, but it is almost beyond belief that 
good men who openly profess to be followers of the Prince of 
Peace, Him who never raised an angry hand against his brother 
and who called all men brothers, should not be earnestly for peace 
without any ifs or buts. As war is not considered a Christian 
virtue one would think that all high-minded men would be de¬ 
lighted to help abolish the evil thing. Rev. Kennedy, who speaks 
as one from the ranks, says that war is obviously the most wicked 
thing he knows. In the light of recent experience no one can 
now hide behind the excuse of necessity or self defense and hope 
to plead justification. 

Possibly we do not make sufficient allowance for those who 
violate judgment and conscience to be in sympathy with their 
political party. We forget that those who fill our highest places 


CIVILIZATION SHOULD UNITE WITH CIVILIZATION 87 

are human beings and that most of them are subject to human 
temptations the same as ordinary mortals, the difference being 
one of degree. What causes one to fall may be no temptation to 
another, not because either is beyond temptation’s reach but 
because of a difference in their circumstances. I do not agree 
with Johnson who says: “Humanly speaking, there is a certain 
degree of temptation which will overcome any virtue,” nor with 
the professional politician who thinks that every man has his 
price, but we know both from observation and experience many 
men have a price for which they sell themselves, body and soul. 
Money proves the undoing of many. Others have all the money 
they can use but ambition is their weakness. They want power 
and the promise of a place of more or less importance is suffi¬ 
cient to secure their loyalty. 

When the Presidency or any other high office in the great¬ 
est nation on the globe is flaunted in the faces of men with the 
understanding that they can have the place by being in sym¬ 
pathy with certain principles, need we be surprised, knowing 
the weakness of human nature, that men give way to party, 
though they may do so with mental reservation, and accept the 
views of those who are supposed to control the coveted prize? 
These men who thus sacrifice principle to join with others try 
to think that wrong is right and they may succeed, for an emi¬ 
nent scientist says: “A man can soon reason himself out of 
decency, if he will take the pains and try hard.” Perhaps we 
ought rather to put the blame on party spirit, which Washington 
in his farewell address warned us against, the inclination to fol¬ 
low the leader, rather than on the individual. The conscience 
and judgment of the mass of people is likely to be right, if pro¬ 
fessional manipulators will keep hands off. 

It is no doubt true of this country as of others that, aside 
from the military, those who took part in the last great war are 


88 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


most bitter against another. They know from experience what 
war costs in life, limb, money and morals. One of the strongest 
speeches I ever heard against war was made by Frederick Palmer, 
the celebrated war correspondent, who has seen the demon in 
various countries in all its hideousness. He speaks of what he 
has seen and knows and he agrees with all sensible men that it 
is high time international disputes should be settled without the 
slaughter and expense of war. 

It is not strange that no one wants to accept the responsi¬ 
bility for war. There is usually more or less strife among men 
as to which is entitled to the credit of beginning a transaction— 
but not so with war. All try to blame the other fellow. The 
Germans were willing to accept peace at almost any price, but 
they deny any responsibility for the war which upset the world 
financially and morally. They say, and with too much truth, 
that they were simply doing as all other powers were, preparing 
for an adequate self defense. They might have added what we 
should all know that when every great power is prepared for self 
defense, the ambition of their own warriors and the hatred and 
suspicion for all others make war inevitable. That is what the 
military is for, no matter what the excuse for its maintenance. 
For those who may need to know something more of war before 
being opposed to it under all circumstances, I append as the end 
of this chapter the testimony of two who took a soldier’s part in 
what the pagans call the Christians’ war. The worst thing to be 
said of the heathens’ characterization of the war is its truthful¬ 
ness. 


The third World’s Christian Conference was held in Pitts¬ 
burgh November 9 to 16, 1919. At this meeting twenty-two for¬ 
eign nations were represented and the speeches made by those 
from abroad would do credit to a like number of Americans. 
Among the Americans who made speeches were Charles E. 


CIVILIZATION SHOULD UNITE WITH CIVILIZATION 89 

Hughes, Senator Willis and others eminent in some department 
of the country’s activities. Dr. Charles E. Jefferson gave a most 
excellent address on the League of Nations and all who touched 
on the subject were strong for a peace league. The address of 
Captain Basil Stoica, a Roumanian, is noteworthy. He is edu¬ 
cated, wrote some books and when the war broke out was obliged 
to go. He was wounded and operated on four times without an 
anaesthetic because they had none. When I say that the Rou¬ 
manian army lost 354,000 men of 620,000 some idea may be had 
of what the World War meant to Roumania. Captain Stoica 
told of the first man he killed and how it affected him. After¬ 
ward he was less affected, thus proving that war has an inevitable 
tendency to harden men and render them less sensible to pain 
and suffering: 

“My first encounter with the enemy was in Transylvania, in 
the forests. While we were lying down behind the trees under 
cover, we heard the noise of dead leaves, and we discovered 
something greenish grey. The Austrian patrol came nearer and 
nearer us and then I raised my rifle and fired. It was a single 
bullet and the man hit by it fell dead, the first one in line. My 
men rushed ahead then, and I went immediately to see the poor 
man T had shot. 

11 He was an Austrian officer. I looked into his face; it was 
pale and the blood was flowing from his mouth, ears and nose. 
The bullet I had fired had entered on one side of his head and 
come out on the other side. I felt for the first time in my life I 
had committed a crime. In that moment I asked myself, ‘Why 
did I kill that man ? I never saw him before: he never saw me; 
he never did me any harm nor I to him; and yet we met there 
in the forest and I killed him. Why did I do it? Then I 
answered myself in a cynical way: ‘I killed him because he came 
to my country.’ 

“Gentlemen, that was the answer I gave to myself at that 
moment. Since that day I have killed several. This little deco¬ 
ration means sixteen Germans and a machine gun. But all the 
other killings did not impress me as much as that first man. 


90 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


Since that day I have frequently put that question to myself 
and I answer because war is a crime. I should like to go to every 
one and yell into his ears that war is a crime, so that all w r ho 
have any influence may do everything possible to prevent it in 
future.” 

As the closing of this chapter I give an extract from a book 
written by the Rev. S. A. Studert Kennedy and published in the 
United States by George H. Doran of New York. Rev. Kennedy 
is not only one of the most popular preachers in London, filling 
the church wherever he speaks, but was in the English army 
during the World conflict and knows from experience what he is 
talking about when he condemns war. He gives the war mon¬ 
ster and the men who uphold it some telling blows which they 
will not attempt to answer: 

“We in Britain are accustomed to think of the nineteenth 
century as a time of progress, prosperity and peace. That is a 
comfortable lie and the facts Ynake me sick. The real nineteenth 
century was just a shambles. There was war in the world every 
four years. I carried the facts of history out to France in 1914. 
I was always interested in military history. I was interested 
because I knew nothing. Battles were just the movements on 
the chess-board of the world to me. I was innocent, as fatuously 
innocent as most young men of my generation. I carried the 1 
interesting facts into my first battle and there they came to life 
they roared and thundered, they dripped with blood, they cursed, 
mocked, blasphemed and cried for mercy. They stood up before 
me like obscene specters, beckoning with bloody hands, laughing 
like fiends at my little parochial religion and my silly parochial 
God. T can remember running over an open space under shell¬ 
fire, and every shrieking shell kept yelling at me with foul oaths. 
Now do' you understand, you miserable little parson with your' 
petty shibboleths, this is W-A-R, and history is war and this is 
what history means. 

“Does God will war? Is it part of His mysterious plan? 
Are the military historians right? I answer: ‘If God wills war 
then I am morally mad, and I don’t know good from Evil. War 


CIVILIZATION SHOULD UNITE WITH CIVILIZATION 91 


is the most obviously wicked thing I know. If God wills war 
then I am not an atheist, I am an anti-theist. I am against God. 
I hate Him. Does God hate war? Does He will its abolition? 
Does He wdll peace on earth ? Does God will that Bible broken 
dreams come true? Whatever God does for us must be done 
through us. It is of no use to ask God to make peace for us over 
our heads.’ 

“Of the many barbarous and bloody centuries through 
which man has passed, the nineteenth was perhaps the most 
barbarous and bloody. (Rev. Kennedy here gives the dates of 
about twenty-five wars, some lasting more than twenty years.) 
Such is the record of the nineteenth century. It seems to make 
the Angel’s song of Christmas a mockery—war every four years, 
and you can go back and back again, and it is always the same, 
as it was in the beginning—war, as it is now—war, and shall we 
add, ‘ever shall be’? If war is to go on forever, then I am in 
the dark. I can find no meaning and no Gpd in history, at least 
no God that I can love or respect. 

“The interpretation of the history of the world by militar¬ 
ists seems at first sight to be the rational one. This interpreta¬ 
tion of history is not only bad morals, it is sloppy thinking; it 
is based upon a false scientific theory. The history of man is the 
history of a movement. We are always moving toward some¬ 
thing. The militarist historians teach us to find the meaning of 
this movement bv constantly looking back to where it started: 
they bid us to look back to the animals and the savages and find 
the real meaning of civilization. They found their great argu¬ 
ment for perpetual war on the struggle for existence revealed in 
nature and among animals. 

“With all the power in my being I assert on rational grounds 
that the interpretation of history toward the New Jerusalem of 
God is the only interpretation which is really possible. The 
Christian philosophy of history is the only philosophy which 
exists. The militarist philosophy is not a philosophy, but a cry 
of despair, and a denial of all philosophies: it has no end in view; 
it represents life as a struggle to get nowhere in particular, and 
a strife without any reward. 

“The war has not led any great religious revival. I am not 
surprised at that, for I see nothing in war to produce a religious 


92 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


revival. I believe it to be a dangerous falsehood to believe that 
war uplifts, purges or sanctifies men’s souls. That is a lie which 
only Treitsche or the devil could believe. It is the heart of that 
mock-heroic sentimentalism upon which militarism is morally, 
or rather immorally founded. People stay at home by the fire, 
or sit in studies and write books, and imagine war to mean dash- 
over the parapet in defense of liberty and right, and giving one’s 
life in a supreme act of self-sacrifice for the great cause. War 
can be made into that by some exceptional souls, but in itself it 
bears no resemblance to it whatever. You don’t go out to give 
your life; you go out to take the other fellow’s. You don’t go 
out to save, you go out to kill; if you don’t you are no good as a 
soldier. If the non-com'batants hide behind the sentimental con¬ 
ception of war, they hide behind a lie, and a peculiarly cruel lie, 
and I think thousands of us have been doing just that. 

Once for all let me state my conviction that war is pure, un¬ 
diluted, filthy sin. I don’ J ' ^pr redeemed a single soul 

or ever will. The only power that war possesses is the only 
power that any evil thing possesses, the power to destroy itself. 
If this world-war has done us any good it is because in its flames 
a number of old, soul-killing lies have been self-destroyed. 

44 What is God like? What do you mean when you say He 
is almighty? What does the first of the Thirty-nine Articles 
mean when it says that there is one God without body parts or 
passions, of infinite wisdom and power? What do all those 
wonderful pictures in Revelations mean—of God sitting on a 
throne with Christ at His right hand, while millions of angels 
throng around Him singing songs and bending low in worship, 
singing praises of triumph and victory of God while a German 
soldier spears a Belgian baby, rapes its mother and keeps her 
alive to see the father shot. In God’s name what is the Almighty 
God of war like ? 

‘ ‘ That is the question that has been torturing the minds of 
millions during this war, making some blaspheme and curse the 
very name of God, making others turn from the thought of Him 
in bitterness and despair; making others dull and indifferent to 
religion and all it means. If a man had come to me on the battle¬ 
field and told me that God knew best, and that I must leave it 
all to Him, he would have made me blaspheme; and the man 


CIVILIZATION SHOULD UNITE WITH CIVILIZATION 


93 


who comes to me today with the same pious platitude on his lips 
makes me want to blaspheme more bitterly still. Although the 
horror of the battlefield has faded from my mind, thought and 
meditation have produced in my soul a dead and settled loathing 
of it as an evil, and not merely a painful thing.’ ’ 

Rev. Kennely’s opinion of war is one of the strongest things 
ever written against this world-wide evil. It is particularly 
valuable to the moralist, or the man who pretends to be governed 
by moral considerations, because Reverend Kennedy is a popular 
preacher, and for the reason that he speaks from experience. If 
any man who favors war, even to the extent of appropriating 
money for the military, has time and inclination to read but one 
of the ten or twelve books of which Reverend Kennedy is the 
author, I trust he will read the one under the title, “LIES.” 

I hope Coolidge, Weeks and Denby and all who in any 
way believe in war and the preparation for it will read what 
Captain Stoica and Rev. Kennedy have to say of war. They 
speak from experience, and neither talks of war from the knowl¬ 
edge he acquired in holding down a good job at a big salary. 
Does anyone deny that both tell the truth? 


CHAPTER VI. 


The Washington Conference. 

"Ez for war I call It murder; 

There you have it plain and flat. 

You don’t want to go no furder, 

Than my New Testament for that.” 

—James Russell Lowell 

It has been pointed out by many authorities, military men 
among them, that a few men or a few nations cannot bring- peace 
to the world. All men whose opinions are worth considering 
have a horror of war, but they differ as to the best way to 
destroy the monster. The great concensus of opinion is that, 
as all nations are interested, and as a small nation, like a small 
man, has all the rights of a large one, the only way is to interest 
all, and have those who feel that war should no longer curse the 
world, join in a League to bring about what they desire. It was 
said when we were talking of resuming specie payment that the 
way to resume is to resume. This may seem like trite advice, 
but it simply means that we should never resume if we always 
talked about its desirability but never did anything more. We 
agree that war should be abolished and the sure way is for all 
nations to agree to stop fighting and do as they agree. 

That a few men or a few nations can do away with poison 
gas, or control the number of submarines, or say how many air 
ships a nation may have, or fix the number of its war vessels 
is too preposterous to think of seriously. It seems they cannot 
even fix the terms of peace. All nations have come to the right¬ 
ful conclusion that war is savagery; they know most of our na- 


THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE 


95 


tional expense is for war and preparation for war and they 
should need no further inducement to lead them to join the first 
League that promises to abolish it. It is hardly necessary to say 
that any small nation will look askance at the larger nations 
that have an agreement among themselves, and none for the 
smaller ones. A nation may be small but it deserves protection 
from others, and that is all any one should expect. A few na¬ 
tions under a gentlemen’s agreement may scrap some of its kill¬ 
ing material, but any of them will have enough left to whip half 
a dozen of the smaller ones. Let every nation, no matter how 
small nor how large, join the League of Nations and it will then 
feel that it has some interest in helping to keep the peace of 
the world. 

Though the great war was to be the last, I read in some of 
our jingo papers that we must be prepared for the next one. 
There was talk in Washington about the time of the “big five” 
conference that another meeting of the same powers would be 
necessary soon to agree further on terms. They found the last 
war so horrible that the five powers hope to arrange a sort of 
Sunday school or denatured war. In other words, the last war 
was so savage and barbarous that the women will object to fur¬ 
nishing boys for another of the same kind, and a demand has 
gone out for new rules of warfare. The five nations in solemn 
conference have already decided that poison gas and submarines 
should be considered outside of the prescribed limit of civilized 
warfare. Those who are opposed to war wonder why the powers 
cannot forbid war entirely, if they have authority to decide what 
shall and shall not be used. To forbid war entirely is ,perhaps, 
not to be thought of as long as navy boards and war boards are 
making millions out of the bloody business, and whose members 
have no trouble in making Congress think we are in constant 
danger from people much like ourselves. 

It is certain, judging by what some of the eye-witnesses have 


96 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


said, that war will not be a Sunday school game until some of 
its deadly inventions are declared to have no place in civilization. 
For example, the New York Sun gave a description from a War¬ 
saw correspondent of a German gun which the correspondent 
claimed used a shell weighing 2800 pounds. I let him wind up 
in his own words: 

“A Pilsener’’ shell kills every one within 150 yards of the 
point of explosion, and kills many who are further off. The 
mere pressure of gases of explosion breaks in the partitions and 
roofs of bomb-proof shelters. Scores of men, who escape metal 
fragments, stones and showers of earth, are blinded, lacerated 
or killed by the concussion. Men who are only a short distance 
away are torn to 'bits; the gas gets into the body cavities in a 
highly compressed state, and, on expanding, rends the tissues 
asunder. Sometimes only the clothes are stripped from the 
bodies, the boots remaining intact. Of other men close by not a 
fragment remains, the clothes disappear and only a few buttons 
or other small metal articles are found. If the shell bursts very 
near, the explosion melts rifle barrels as if they were struck by 
lightning. Men who disappear in such explosions are reported 
missing, as there is no means of identifying them as dead. 

The Allies must have had something about as bad if we may 
judge by a letter written to the New York World . I don’t know 
whether the writer of this letter is one of the three or four who 
are especially praised for killing more Germans than any others, 
but at least three are given that high honor. They may have 
made a few more widows and orphans by killing men they had 
never seen, and the same number of Germans no doubt deserved 
especial credit for killing the greatest number of Allies. In war, 
killing is an honor. Elven military men must despise their trade, 
but they pretend to think the scientific killing of men is still 
proper and necessary. I give the letter in full: 

“ Wounded recently at Ypres by a shell falling near the 
gun he was operating, and now convalescing in England at the' 


THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE 


97 


home of a relative, Grady Powell of Lincolnton, Ga., has written 
to friends here that in the short time he has seen service as a 
member of the Canadian Artillery he has fired 6,000 shells and 
has killed 3,000 Germans. He says each shrapnell contains 365 
bullets, and fragments of the shell will account for enough to 
make one shell worth 500 projectiles. He believes that every 
other shell got at least one man. One he says he knows killed 
forty-three. 

4 ‘Every time I drop a shell in their trenches and see a bunch 
of legs and arms fly about twenty feet up in the air, I can’t help 
feeling mighty nice about it. I have never but once got so low 
down as to shoot at one man. This guy I shot at to try out some 
new ammunition. The ammunition was O. K.” 

The foregoing letter not only tells something of the horrible 
instruments of death used in modern warfare, but something of 
the effect war has on the minds of those who take part in it. I 
know there are those who claim that they lose none of their 
respect for life when partaking in scenes in which killing and 
maiming human beings are the principal objects. Such a con¬ 
dition is contrary to both experience and nature, for even the 
killing of dumb animals has the effect of hardening those who 
engage in it. There was a time when butchers were not per¬ 
mitted to sit on English juries in capital cases on the ground 
that they were hardened to human suffering by their occupation. 
I am inclined to think that those who can take part day after 
day in scenes of blood and death and lose none of their respect 
for life do not have much to lose. It is well known that crimes 
of violence increase greatly after every war. 

The German theory is that as war is cruelty and destruction, 
the more cruel and destructive it can be made the sooner it will 
be over, and the greater the chances of victory for the side that 
makes the bloody contest most horrible. It is not necessary to 
prove that most of the military world has derived much of its 
war spirit from Germany. 

Men in war are simply savages who believe in killing and 


98 * THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 

wounding those they have never seen and who may be innocent 
of wrong-doing, to settle a dispute, and the German plan, right 
or wrong, will be adopted. All talk of warriors abolishing gases, 
or submarines, or anything else, though fit only for devils, is the 
merest bosh. When men have their passions sufficiently aroused 
to kill and wound their neighbors and destroy their property, 
they will not stop to see whether the means are according to rules, 
but will use the most deadly thing available. If nations can 
say what may or may not be used in war, why can they not say 
that nothing more deadly than footballs shall be used ? 

Experience as well as common sense shows that war has 
no refining influence, no matter how loudly some may bawl for 
the exercise of humanity. It would be natural to suppose that 
the five powers called to Washington by the late President Hard¬ 
ing would observe an agreement. They thought, or at least pre¬ 
tended, that they were abolishing gas and submarines as un¬ 
worthy of use in civilized warfare. How they have succeeded is 
told by the Pathfinder in the October, 1923, number: 

“The treaty prohibiting poisonous gas and limiting sub¬ 
marines in time of war was signed Feb. 6, 1922, by delegates 
representing the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy 
and Japan at the Washington disarmament conference. Article 
V reads: 

“ ‘The use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, 
and all analogous liquids, materials or devices, having been justly 
condemned by the general opinion of the civilized world and a 
prohibition of such use having been declared in treaties to which 
a majority of the civilized powers are parties, the signatory 
powers, to the end that this prohibition shall be universally ac¬ 
cepted as part of international law binding alike the conscience 
and practice of nations, declare their assent to such prohibition, 
agree to be bound thereby as between themselves and invite all 
other civilized nations to adhere thereto.’ 

“This was nearly two years ago! And yet preparations t< 


THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE 99 

use deadly gases and other chemical agents on a greater scale 
than ever in a future war go merrily on. 

“The U. S. army’s huge $45,000,000 chemical warfare plant 
at Edgewood, Md., is still functioning, and there officers and 
enlisted men of all branches of service are being instructed in 
the latest and most approved methods of scientifically dealing 
horrible death. At the same time similar establishments are 
being conducted more or less secretly in foreign countries. 

“Inquiry at the war department shortly after the treaty 
was signed elicited the reply that chemical warfare investigation 
and research would have to go on until the pact went into effect. 
In other words, the treaty did not become effective until all the 
signatory powers had formally ratified its provisions. 

“Now all five countries have ratified the pact—and still 
these activities are not diminished. New and yet more toxic 
gases are being developed, and apparatus for releasing them 
are being improved. This so-called “research” work is not con¬ 
fined to this country but is duplicated in England, France, Italy 
and Japan as w’ell. Is this treaty, then, another “scrap of 
paper”? Who can explain how this work can go on, now, after 
the treaty has been ratified, in the face of the solemn agreement? 
Inquiry brings no response. 

“At the Hague conference in 1889 a similar treaty banning 
gas warfare was drawn up. Germany was one of those who 
agreed not to use poisonous gases, yet during the war in 1915 
she introduced chlorin “through necessity.” Strange to say, 
the United States refused to join the 1889 pact prohibiting the 
“breath of death.” The late Admiral Mahan, representing this 
country, vigorously opposed exclusion of toxic gases from the 
list of permissible implements of war, giving as the American 
contention that the use of gases was not more inhumane than 
other forms of killing in battle. 

“Now, after the ratification of the pact barring poisonous 
gas, we read of the establishment of a chemical warfare service 
in the Italian army, the erection of a factory to make war gases 
at San Fernando de Jamara, Spain, the use of gas shells on the 
Moroccan front, the use of gas bombs in the struggle between 
the Chinese factions, the special training of a gas and flame 
section of the boLshevic army, and—oh, well, what’s the use!’’ 


100 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


So-called civilized nations, from time to time, agree on rules 
of civilized warfare, and nothing could be more ridiculous or 
inconsistent, or I might say disgusting. A lot of full grown 
men, supposed to be intelligent, sit around a table loaded with 
an abundance to eat and drink, and solemnly decide for millions 
what shall and shall not be used in legitimate warfare. The last 
one of these meetings, previous to that of the big five which 
outlawed poison gas and submarines, was signed by twenty na¬ 
tions. They stated that the legitimate object of war is to weaken 
the military force of the enemy, and the representatives of great 
nations, without seeming to be ashamed of themselves or their 
’business, proceeded to lay down rules of what they called 
civilized warfare, though there is no such thing to the truly 
civilized man. 

They agreed to use no explosive balls weighing less than 
400 grammes or a little less than a pound. An explosive ball 
that weighed 401 grammes would be in accordance with civiliza¬ 
tion, according to the warriors that made the rules of civilized 
warfare a few years ago. Warfare is evidently growing more 
uncivilized, because the gentlemen who debarred poison gas and 
the submarine from civilized warfare last year said nothing 
about explosive musket balls, so they must be all right as far as 
civilized warfare is concerned. The warriors who met a few 
years ago laid down rules telling how gently women and children 
that fell into the hands of the enemy were to be treated; how 
kindly prisoners of war were to be handled, and how careful 
an army was to be of the enemy’s country when passing through, 
etc., etc. One would be led to think on reading the rules for 
civilized warfare that war is really a Sunday school affair and 
only men of the highest type are competent to direct it. Ex- 
Senator Pettigrew says that a lawyer is the only man who can 
take a bribe and call it a fee; he might have added that a mili- 


THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE 


101 


tary man is the only one who is called a Christian when he com¬ 
mits the highest crimes known to the civil law. 

If there is anything more ridiculous than a few men getting 
together and saying what shall and shall not be used by the world 
when the people of one nation decide to kill those of another, it 
is a sham battle. The only true thing about it is conveyed by 
the word “sham.” The billed, the wounded, the blood, the de¬ 
feat and victory—everything is imaginary. The man who has 
sufficient imagination to enjoy a sham battle and thinks it all 
right should insist on no other kind, for, idiotic as they are, they 
are infinitely better than the real thing. 

As no other inventions pay so well and find so ready a sale 
as death-dealing machines that will kill men and women more 
rapidly and destroy property more readily, many improvements 
have been made in this line. We now have three or four guns 
that will fire thousands of shots per minute, caterpillars that 
wall run over anything, cannon that will shoot over one county 
into the next, gas that will blind or make insane all who come 
under its baleful influence, under-sea destroyers, over-head tor¬ 
pedoes and whole cities under ground—it would seem that we 
have reached the limit to please the heart of a military man. 
They tell us that the next war, which those who fight for glory 
are anticipating with evident pleasure, will be far more bar¬ 
barous than the last. At the next meeting the “big five” may 
outlaw the Pilsener and Big Berthas, and thus further refine 
future wars. 

The most important event in President Harding’s adminis¬ 
tration is the Washington Conference. This is what he referred 
to vaguely when he spoke of something better than the League 
of Nations, something that all could get behind with no danger 
of getting our boys into war. It is only natural that mothers 
should regard with suspicion anything that threatens war; for 
they are tired of furnishing boys to be shot down either at home 


102 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


or abroad at command of somebody higher up. When we speak 
of boys as furnishing food for powder we speak the truth, for the 
adjutant general’s office shows that 1,150,000 of those who were 
soldiers in our Civil War were under the age of eighteen. It may 
be said that most of the millions who are slain in war are good 
men physically, for while almost any kind of a man is considered 
fit to marry and raise a family, none but the best can enter the 
army. When Madame De Stael asked Napoleon who was the 
greatest woman in France, he answered promptly, “The one who 
has raised most children.” He evidently meant boys, for he 
has been called a human butcher and no doubt felt that boys 
can be used for no better purpose than food for powder. 

The agreement for the partial disarmament of five powers 
was regarded by many as a distinct gain for the cause of peace. 
While it was not looked upon by earnest friends of the peace 
cause as taking the place of the League of Nations, on the 
principle that a half loaf is better than no bread, most of them 
gave it their support. Those who were in favor of peace, but 
against the League of Nations because their party was, thought 
the Washington Conference would bring peace without delay. 
As the League of Nations was the first international movement 
of a dozen that promised any hope of success, a large majority 
of our people were inclined to accept it at once; but as President 
Harding proposed something better, he was finally taken at his 
word and considerable anxiety was showed to know what he 
had to offer better than the League of Nations. In the course 
of eight months he called a few nations into conference and pro¬ 
posed scrapping a part of the fighting ships. When the time 
arrived, November 12, 1921, President Harding very properly 
made the first speech. He made a long and good address in 
which there was no patriotism but an abundance of humanity r 
which is better. He said in the course of his speech: 


THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE 


103 


“Here is a meeting which I can well believe is an awakened 
conscience of twentieth century civilization. Speaking as official 
sponsor for the invitation, I think I may well say that the call 
is not from the United States alone; it is rather the spoken word 
of a war-wearied world, struggling for restoration, hungering 
and thisting for better relations; of humanity crying for relief 
and craving assurances of lasting peace. 

“Out of the cataclysm of the World War came new fellow¬ 
ships, new convictions, new aspirations. It is ours to make the 
most of them. A world staggering with debts needs its burden 
lifted. Humanity which has been shocked by wanton disruption 
Would minimize the agencies of that destruction; all thoughtful 
peoples wish for real limitation of armament and would like war 
outlawed. In soberest reflection the world’s hundreds of millions 
who pay in peace and die in war wish their statesmen to turn 
the expenditure for destruction into means of construction, 
aimed at a higher state for those who come after. 

“War has grown progessively cruel and more destructive 
from the first recorded conflict to the present day, and the re- 
terse order would become our boasted civilization. Gentlemen 
of the Conference, the United States welcomes you with un¬ 
selfish hands. We harbor no fears; we have no sordid ends to 
serve: we suspect no enemy; we contemplate no conquests. Con¬ 
tent with what we have, we seek nothing which is another’s. 
We only wish to do with you that finer, nobler thing which no 
nation can do alone.” 

He further says in the same address that speaking officially 
for the United States, he can frankly say that one hundred 
millions of people want less armament and no war.” 

In spite of all these strong declarations for peace, the war 
department of which the President is the head sanctioned a 
movement, inaugurated at San Francisco on Armistice Day, or¬ 
ganizing the Association of the Army and Navy of the United 
States. The object of the organization, if we are to believe the 
statements sent out to induce those who were in the late war to 
join, are to promote patriotism, encourage the study of American 


104 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


history and military art in relation to the common defense of 
our country. 

Does President Harding expect to be a man of peace and a 
war man at the same time ? Does he imagine that he can save a 
few million dollars by ceasing to build war ships a few years, and 
spend the money in organizing the army and all the military 
forces of the country? A man must have courage to withstand 
the blandishment of men connected with the war college, the 
war council, the Secretary of War and the war propaganda that 
is constantly going on at Washington; but a President who is 
for peace when all the world is asking for it is expected to stand 
the test. He cannot be a consistent peace man and be preparing 
for war, either offensive or defensive, at the same time. In the 
hope of satisfying both jingoes and peace men he has the follow¬ 
ing in his message of December 8, 1922: 

“The proposed survey of a plan to draft all the resources 
of the republic, human and material, for national defense may 
well have your approval. I commended such a program in case 
of future war, in the inaugural address of March 4, 1921, and 
every experience in the adjustment and liquidation of war claims 
and the settlement of war obligations persuades me we ought to 
be prepared for such universal call to armed defense. 

“I bring you no apprehension of war. The world is abhor¬ 
rent of it, and our own relations are not only free from every 
threatening cloud, but we have contributed our larger influence 
toward making armed conflict less likely. 

“ Those who assume that we played our part in the World 
War and later took ourselves aloof and apart, unmindful of 
world obligations, give scant credit to the helpful part we as¬ 
sume in international relationships. 

“The four power pact, which abolishes every probability of 
war on the Pacific, has brought new confidence in a maintained 
peace, and I can well believe it might be made a model for like 
assurances wherever in the world any common interests are 
concerned.’' 


THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE 


105 


He admits that the world is abhorrent of war and yet he 
gives his sanction to preparing for what the world doesn’t want. 
If some foreign nation would invite us to meet with them and 
propose scrapping a part of the navy to lessen the chances of 
war, and then we should find that nation organizing all the 
forces of the country, we would rightly conclude that it was 
playing false; that it was pretending to be for peace while get¬ 
ting ready for war. We should not forget that example is 
stronger than precept in public as well as private affairs. We 
might as well come with a bowl of poison and a, skull and cross 
bones as an earnest of our good intentions as to organize men 
for defense to convince other nations, who know as much of inr 
trigue as ourselves, that we are friendly and mean what we say. 

Charles A. Hughes, Secretary of State and once a candidate 
for President, was chairman of the conference and very properly 
made an address of considerable length. It seemed to devolve 
upon him to say how many ships each nation should scrap in 
order that it might be just to those that took part in the agree¬ 
ment. He quoted from what Emperor Nicholas II of Russia 
so well said in first calling the nations together with a view of 
getting them to agree to a more humane, Christianlike and 
cheaper method of settling their differences. Germany proved to 
be the only nation of power to oppose any plan but that of war, 
twenty-three years ago, and the other nations gave way to Ger¬ 
many and went on in the old way until they spent, not millions 
but billions of dollars and lost millions of lives. All nations 
have learned a dear lesson, but it is said that some will learn in 
no school but experience and it is to be hoped that all have 
learned the lesson well. Mr. Hughes quotes the Emperor of 
Russia as saying that the intellectual and physiological strength 
of the nations, capital and labor are, for the major part, diverted 
from their natural application and unproductively consumed. 
Hundreds of millions are devoted to acquiring terrible engines 


106 THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 

of destruction, which, though today regarded as the last word of 
science, are destined tomorrow to lose all value in consequence 
of some fresh discovery in the same field. National culture, eco¬ 
nomic progress and the production of wealth are either checked 
or paralyzed in their development. Mr. Hughes made a long 
and excellent speech from which I make the following extracts: 

“Although the effect was clearly perceived, the race in 
preparation of armament, wholly unaffected by these futile sug¬ 
gestions, went on until it fittingly culminated in the greatest 
war in history; and we are now suffering from the unparalleled 
loss of life, the destruction of hopes and the widespread im¬ 
poverishment which measure the cost of victory over the brutal 
pretensions of military force.” 

“We can no longer content ourselves with investigations, 
with statistics, with reports of the circumlocution of inquiry. 
The essential facts are sufficiently known. The time has come 
and this conference has not been called for general resolutions or 
mutual advice but for action. We meet with the full understand¬ 
ing that the aspirations of mankind are not to be defeated either 
by plausible suggestions of postponement or impracticable coun¬ 
sels of perfection.” 

The representatives of Great Britain, France, the Nether¬ 
lands, China, Italy, Japan, Belgium and Portugal spoke, some 
of them long and all of them well. They endorsed what the 
speakers from the United States had said, but not one had any¬ 
thing patriotic to offer. Following the lead of the speakers from 
the United States they all breathed the spirit of humanity. The 
Conference, however, had scarcely closed until the jingoes in 
Congress and out were actively at work trying to show that we 
are not in danger of battleships but in great danger from air¬ 
planes, and a wise patriotism required us to prepare for war on 
modern lines. I make no pretentions to understand either mili¬ 
tary tactics or military ethics, but there are war men who scout 
the idea that the Washington Conference will have the slightest 
effect toward bringing peace. It is openly proclaimed by more 


THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE 


107 


than half a dozen admirals, both at home and abroad, that the 
day of battleships was over before the Washington Conference, 
that an airship costing a few thousand dollars could quickly send 
to the bottom a battleship costing forty millions. The first inti¬ 
mation I had as to the uselessness of battleships came from 
France, though the French were not the only ones to know the 
fact. Admiral Gueprette, who is called by the Associated Press 
one of the most distinguished officers of France, said before the 
Chamber of Deputies soon after the Washington Conference: 

‘ ‘ I understand that French public opinion resented the par¬ 
simonious, ‘poor relative’ share granted the French navy at the 
Washington Conference. But from a practical viewpoint we 
should be content. 

“The consequences of the accords undertaken at Washing¬ 
ton are platonic, inasmuch as they prohibit building battleships 
of more than 35,000 tons, which owing to the growing importance 
of submarines and airplanes would be useless. 

“ Battleships which need heavy armor and cost hundreds of 
millions of francs are a folly to which no country can consent. 
Future sea power lies in speedy cruisers capable of diving, also 
in giant hydro-airplanes or aerial cruisers powerfully armed 
with heavy torpedoes.” 

If anything further than the opinion of Admiral Gueprette 
is needed to show that the battleships to be scrapped by the 
terms of the Washington Conference are useless in modern war¬ 
fare and that no more would be built regardless of any under¬ 
standing or agreement, it is furnished in McClure s for June, 
1923, in which is an article by Admiral Fullam, who had charge 
of naval affairs in the Pacific during the World War, under the 
head, “The Passing of Sea Power.” Admiral Fullam in begin¬ 
ning his article says: 

“The wings of ‘'Sea Power” have been clipped. New naval 
weapons have vastly strengthened the defense and greatly weak¬ 
ened the offense in overseas warfare. Great armadas and armies 


108 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


cannot cross the seas. Force cannot, as in the past, be carried 
over the oceans. 

“With the sea as a buffer, weak nations can defy the strong. 
A puny power, without a navy, can challenge the strongest 
battle fleet. It can, with intelligent energy, make its coast im¬ 
pregnable against a hundred Dreadnoughts. With an impene¬ 
trable barage of mines, air forces, torpedoes, and submarines, it 
can easily hold a maritime enemy one hundred miles from its 
shores. 

“Intercontinental wars will be well-nigh impossible in the 
future. The weak will not bow to the strong from over the 
seas. No one nation can rule the waves hereafter. The greatest 
fighting navy may inspire no fear. A hostile coast can scorn its 
power. Its guns cannot reach the target. They are like ancient 
weapons in a modern age. A Dreadnought fleet on an enemy’s 
coast is like Don Quixote fighting windmills with a lance. 

“These statements are neither sensational nor dogmatic. 
They merely express established facts—facts that will profoundly 
affect future national policies. Statesmanship and diplomacy 
must build upon new foundations wherever sea forces are in¬ 
volved. The old formulae will no longer apply in intercontinental 
affairs.” 

Admiral Fullam quoted the remarks of more than a dozen 
distinguished naval officers in support of his contention, some 
of them made twelve years ago by those who were evidently 
quicker to catch the prevailing drift than those who built battle¬ 
ships and furnished the armor to render them formidable. He 
quotes Admiral Scott, who nine years ago declared the battle¬ 
ship of no further use, long before the Washington Conference 
was thought of. Admiral Fullam says: 

“In 1914, Admiral Sir Percy Scott of the British Navy, in 
a letter to the London Times , declared: 

“ ‘First, that modern weapons have entirely revolutionized 
naval warfare. Second, that if we were at war with a country 
within striking distance of submarines, battleships on the high 
seas would be in great danger. Third, that if we went to war, 
we should probably lock up our ships in a safe harbor, and the 


THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE 109 

enemy would do the same. Fourth, that no fleet could (he hidden 
from the airman’s eye. Fifth, that submarines could deliver a 
deadly attack in broad daylight. Sixth, that battleships could 
not bombard an enemy’s port, if it is protected by submarines. 
Seventh, that the enemy’s submarines would come to our coast 
and destroy everything they could. Eighth, that the submarine 
has driven the battleship from the ocean.’ 

“These opinions of Admiral Scott were advanced before air 
forces were fully developed and before heavy bombs and torpedo 
planes had been tried against ships of war. The advent of these 
weapons greatly strengthens his argument. 

“Admiral Sir John Fisher supported Admiral Scott. He 
declared that, the Dreadnought was doomed. ‘Scrap the lot— 
the future fighting is in the air!’ he exclaimed. And these two 
admirals—Fisher and Scott—had done more than any men in 
the world to develop the Dreadnought 1 It is significant, also, 
that Admiral Sims, who is mainly responsible for the Dread¬ 
nought type on our Navy, and Admiral Fiske, whose inventions 
contributed to its power, both agree with Fisher and Scott. 
They, too, think its days are numbered.” 

The opinion of the French admiral, backed up by a half 
dozen others, that battleships, as a. fighting institution, are a 
thing of the past: that the submarines have driven them from 
the ocean, and the later statements of authorities that airplanes 
have made battleships useless ought to shake any man’s faith 
in the Washington Conference as a peace measure. To say that 
the delegates to the Washington Conference knew nothing of 
the uselessness of battleships which they so solemnly agreed to 
scrap, though it had been known and published by naval experts 
for years, is to doubt the ability of the delegates to read or 
reason. It may be urged that most of the authorities are British, 
but some of the delegates were British. That no advantage may 
be taken of this subterfuge I quote on another page from the 
American General Mitchell, who made the prediction before the 
Washington Conference that an airship costing a few thousand 
dollars would send to the bottom the most expensive battleships. 


110 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


It is beyond question that the Washington Conference was pri¬ 
marily economic; that the object was to scrap some useless ves¬ 
sels and stop the expense of building more. The delegates un¬ 
doubtedly agreed with Admiral Sir John Fisher, who advised 
them to “Scrap the lot—future fighting is in the air.” 

No one will deny that the scrapping was a good thing, but 
the Conference had no right moral, military nor any other, to 
convey a false impression and try to make the people think that 
the object of scrapping a few old battleships, useful only to show 
how easy it is for a cheap airplane to sink a battleship, is to 
promote the cause of peace. If the delegates wanted to hinder 
war and promote peace why did they not give their attention to 
limiting air ships about which there was no question ? Even now 
the American Legion, which is composed of those who know 
what war means, is asking that air ships be limited. Their pro¬ 
posal under date of August 20, 1923, is as follows: 

“Indianapolis, Ind., Aug. 20, 1923.—A world conference 
for the limitation of airplane construction for war purposes is 
proposed by the American Legion, in an announcement made at 
its national headquarters here today. The Legion will conduct 
a referendum to obtain the views of prominent Americans in re¬ 
gard to the advisability of holding such a conference in Wash¬ 
ington. 

“All members of Congress, all Governors, 1,000 editors, 100 
college presidents and many others will be asked to express an 
opinion on the proposal, and if the response is favorable Presi¬ 
dent Coolidge will be asked to call an international conference. 

Statistics gathered by the Legion show that France has 140 
squadrons of military flying machines and intends to have 220 
squadrons by the end of 1925, according to Commander Owsley. 
France has planes which carry seventy-five milimeter guns; 
others which can transport six machine guns and their crews, 
enormous bombers, special fighting ships armored with battle¬ 
ship steel and actual troop ships of the air. 

“England, the Legion points out, is France's nearest com- 


THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE 111 

petitor and has voted an extra $27,500,000 to enlarge its air 
forces. 

The statement declares that naval and land forces have been 
reduced materially by international agreement, and that the 
Legion purposes to attempt to obtain similar measures in regard 
to the air. 

“The crying need of the world today is peace—industrial, 
commercial, economic peace, a restoration from the ravages and 
horrors of war, a settling down and getting back to pursuits of 
sane industry, quietude of heart and mind, to live at safety, 
secure from the covetous invader. 

“The statement challenges ‘the right of any nation to pre¬ 
pare any instrument of destruction and claim the name of de¬ 
fender of the world peace/ 

“America is ready to lead the way to secure peace in the 
air, and she has gone far by example to make war impossible on 
the land and sea.” 

Calling the Washington Conference and allowing the im¬ 
pression to go to the people that the object was disarmament for 
the purposes of peace was asking the people to believe an un¬ 
truth. I have no right to say this unless true. I find the justifica¬ 
tion in the speech that President Harding, the man who called 
the Conference, made before the Press Club of Seattle on July 
27, 1923. Among other things he said, according to the Associ¬ 
ated Press: 

“We were building two years ago at a rate that would have 
placed our armed sea power in excess of any other power, but 
in conviction that armament cost and competition was leading 
to menacing national burdens we invited an international con¬ 
ference to fix limitations/’ 

With this authority am I not warranted in saying that the 
Washington Conference was simply economic and that no more 
battleships than those under way would ever have been built had 
no Conference been called ? 

A prominent American general has endorsed all that has 


I 


112 THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 

been said of the foolishness of building expensive war vessels 
in view of the improvements and discoveries in the aviation 
field. We find the following in the Saturday Evening Post of 
March 3, 1923: 

“The significance of recent discoveries was emphasized by 
the late bombing tests off the Virginia capes. It was these tests, 
inspired by Brig. Gen. William Mitchell, Assistant Chief of the 
Army Air Service, many believe, which persuaded the powers to 
take a naval holiday. When it was proved dramatically that a 
$30,000 bombing plane could sink in an hour a $30,000,000 dread¬ 
nought that had required two years to build, no wonder the 
peace-loving, altruistic nations of the world nodded their heads 
in sober consideration of limiting expenditures on big ships. But 
in these effective tests the bombs were dropped from an altitude 
of only 4000 feet. Until recently the highest altitude of these— 
the Martin bomber—was around 10,000 feet. But since these 
tests the supercharger principle has been applied to the Martin 
bomber and they have flown that airplane 27,000 feet—not only 
entirely out of range of antiaircraft guns but entirely out of 
sight. ’ ’ 

General Mitchell, of the United States air service, takes 
several pages of the World f s Work of April, 1921, to give his 
opinion as to whether the battleship is rendered obsolete by the 
airplane. He discusses airplanes before mentioning battleships. 
He does not say that war has always been cruel and is growing 
more so, nor does he express the hope that the world is coming 
to its senses and will soon abolish war as a method of settling 
disputes. Though the Commander in Chief of the Army and 
Navy of the United States says “war is abhorrent to the world ,’ r 
General Mitchell has no word against it and does not intimate 
that nations could get along without it. He admits that we 
learned something during the Civil War, something during the 
Spanish-American War and much more in the World War. He 
quotes from the Chemical War Service with evident satisfaction. 
The report which he quoted says: 


THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE 


113 


‘‘The Chemical Warfare Service has dicovered a liquid ap¬ 
proximately three drops of which applied to any part of the 
akin will cause a man’s death.. Much smaller amounts than this, 
or even vapor from the liquid, cause very severe and slow heal¬ 
ing burns. It is possible for an airplane to fly within 100 feet 
of enemy troops and machine-gun them with practical impunity. 
The opinion of men well-informed on aerial warfare is that the 
only defense against airplanes is attack by airplanes. 

“If, instead of carrying machine guns, attacking planes 
were equipped to carry a tank of this liquid for discharge from 
nozzles similar to the ordinary street sprinkler, so that it would 
fall like rain, killing everything in its path, then you would have 
a weapon which would absolutely destroy troops, cities, or non- 
combatants, unless they were protected by a superior air force. 

“During the Argonne offensive in the past war the entire 
first American Army of a million and a quarter men occupied 
an area approximately forty kilometers long by twenty kilo¬ 
meters wide. If Germany had had 4,000 tons of this material 
and 300 or 400 planes equipped in this way for its distribution, 
the entire First Army would have been annihilated in ten to 
twelve hours.’ ’ 

One would think that General Mitchell was quoting this to 
prove that wars of the future will be too horrible for human 
beings, but he has no word of warning or protest. He evidently 
thinks war is all right, and, like every man in military service, 
considers war the natural condition of mankind. So far as I 
know, most military men agree with the German Marshal Luden- 
dorff, w r ho, even since the last war, quotes Von Moltke who said: 

“Eternal peace is a dream. It is not even a beautiful 
dream, and war is one of the parts of the order of the world, 
such as has been created by God. It is by war that are developed 
the noblest virtues of man-courage, disinterestedness, devotion 
to duty and the spirit of sacrifice, up to the abandonment of one’s 
own life. Without war the world would sink in the morass of 
materialism.” 

This may sound to a normal mind as the vaporings of a 


114 the league of nations 

disordered imagination, but while our military men may have 
a little more discretion in expressing themselves than German 
military writers, they seem to be animated by much the same 
sentiments. 

General Mitchell, in the same article in the World’s Work, 


says: 

“We are reasonably certain that an ordinary bomb, con¬ 
taining from 100 to 200 pounds of T.N.T., and exploded directly 
under the bottom of any dreadnought now in existence, will cause 
such a leak as to result in sinking her. Direct hits on decks 
and superstructures will break every electric light globe on the 
ship, throwing her into absolute darkness below-decks, disrupt 
telephone, radio, and interior communication systems, till nre- 
rooms, engine-rooms, and all compartments ventilated by a forced 
draught svstem with noxious gases, cause shell-shock to persons 
within a radius of 300 feet, disrupt ammunition hoists, dislodge 
or iam turrets, dish upper decks at least, kill all persons on 
upper decks—antiaircraft gun’s crews, fire-control parties m 
tons—cause fire to break out, explode all antiaircraft ammuni¬ 
tion on upper decks, and sink or disable the battleship. 

A little further along he says: 

“It is safe to assume that the large bombs dropped either 
on or in the vicinity of a modern battleship are sufficient to put 
it out of action. As a basis for comparison of costs, a modern 
battleship costs more than $40,000,000, and requires 800 or more 
men to handle it; one bombardment airplane costs about $40,000 
and requires three men to handle it. Therefore, 1 000 bombard- 
ment airplanes can be built for the cost of one battleship. A 
somewhat similar comparison obtains with guns for coast de¬ 
fense, where ten airplanes can be built for the cost of one of the 
largest railway guns. As to the accuracy of hitting, over 15,000 
vards the accuracy of gun fire from cannon, whether on ships or 
on shore rapidly diminishes, so that at 20,000 yards, if from 
5 to 10 per cent of hits are made, it is very fortunate. At a 
ran<^e of 40,000 yards, it is believed that not more than 1 per 
cent of hits will be made, on a military target; and as the life of 


THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE 115 

one of these large cannon is only about 200 rounds, it will only be 
-able to hit twice during its existence.’ ’ 

The expense, in a military man’s mind, is nothing worth 
considering, but to those who have to pay the bills the matter 
of expense is no small item. To General Mitchell and other 
military men it matters not that guns costing millions of dollars 
can be made strike the target but once or twice during their 
life-time, but those who have to pay the millions look at it in a 
different light. The military men of this and every other coun¬ 
try are studying not how they can soonest bring peace to the 
world, but how they can kill the most men in the shortest time, 
and destroy the most property the most quickly and certainly. 
Nothing seems to please them so much as the discovery of a com¬ 
pound that will kill all who come near it. General Mitchell 
admits that the government has spent over one hundred millions 
for aviation, but laments that part of it went to the postoffice 
department. He evidently thinks the amount should be far 
larger and it should all go for war purposes. 

It is agreed on all hands that if another war should occur 
it would be far more horrible and deadly than the last. * 

Thomas Edison, the most famous electrician in the world, 
is opposed to war as illogical, wicked and useless, but as a man 
of science and ability he knows that the next war, if we are 
wicked and idiotic enough to have another, will be more brutal 
than anything in the past. He is quoted as saying that with 
its new discoveries war could reduce the city of London to a pile 
of ruins in a few hours. In a recent interview he gives voice to 
what I hope may be true, that war in the future will be so deadly 
that no nation will dare to undertake to fight another. He says: 

“Europe will never, I believe, indulge again in an inter¬ 
national conflict, for she has learned her lesson from the eco¬ 
nomic disasters of warfare. 


116 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


11 Germany will never again face what it cost her to march 
up to, yet not through, the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. 

“The day has passed when millions of lives can be sacrificed 
to foolish military ideas. The education of the last ten years has 
caused individual common sense to revolt against war. 

“When European cabinets talk of war they count without 
their host. As matters are today the terribly deadly effects of 
inventions to be used in war are such that no country can afford 
to wipe out the humanity of another, if only for reciprocal, in¬ 
dustrial reasons. This fact alone will cause the nations to arbi¬ 
trate rather than to take the extreme measure of settling dis¬ 
putes by shedding blood. 

“A nitroglycerine bomb dropped from one of our modern 
airships will do more damage than whole days of fighting did 
in Napoleon’s time. In other words, invention has got beyond 
the thirst of blood; the power of science, that has been let loose, 
must overwhelm aggressive diplomacy.” 

ThePath finder says that the most deadly poison known to 
science, of which a chemist says that half a small thimbleful 
would be sufficient to kill all the inhabitants of several planets 
like ours, is to be used in future wars. As authority it quotes 
from Secretary of War J. W. Weeks, who says in the Chemical 
Warfare Magazine: 

“In a vast number of cases the difference between a high 
explosive, a dye, a war gas, a medicine or other useful chemical 
is very slight. Naturally searchers for one will find the other. 
The country that has made the most advance in chemical re¬ 
search and the chemical industries will have the greatest knowl¬ 
edge of all compounds that, while of the utmost value to the 
human race in peace, may also be used in time of war. * ’ 

It is not out of place to note that the Secretary of War, 
who h'ad just arrived at Washington from the Pacific coast, 
called a conference on June 5, 1923, to devise more intensive 
moral and religious training for soldiers. More than sixty ac¬ 
ceptances to attend were received. The number included Catho¬ 
lics, Jews, Methodists, and Unitarians. It was announced that 


THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE 


117 


twenty-five army chaplains would attend and a number of men 
prominent in welfare work would make speeches, while Generals 
Pershing and Hines would extend greetings. 

It might not do any harm for the men connected with the 
army, officers as well as the rank and file, to become somewhat 
better than they are, but care must be taken that they no not 
become so good that they don’t want to kill men they have never 
seen and who are innocent of wrong doing. When officers or 
privates become good enough to believe the New Testament, 
which teaches us to love our enemies instead of killing them, 
they are very poor soldiers. Good soldiers never stop to inquire 
whether an action is right or wrong, but do as they are told by 
some one else, no matter how wrong the act. Even most of the 
officers are not allowed to think or act for themselves but must 
obey some one higher up, no matter how he got there. That is 
war, and is in every way contradictory of peace. The world has 
but little faith in the man who prays for peace on Sunday and 
acts for war the remainder of the week. Money and glory are 
now and have always been powerful incentives to lead ambitious 
men, some of whom seem to forget entirely the dictates of human¬ 
ity if they are in the way of their success. 

Secretary Weeks admits that civilization is not as stable as 
before the war, which is equivalent to admitting that war is de¬ 
moralizing, something that the average man should know if he 
has ever heard of war. As an excuse or reason for calling the 
so-called religious conference Mr. Weeks says, under date of 
June 6, 1923: 

“Nothing will hold mankind better together or be of as much 
benefit to men of all nations as religion. I feel personally, as all 
men must do who have passed the meridian of life, a growing 
inclination towards religion and religious life. I speak in the 
broadest sense, of course.. 


118 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


“I am fearful about the results that have come and are 
coming from the late war. The civilization of the world is 
threatened. 

“We wish to instil true religion into the hearts of our young 
men. There are difficulties. We know these in many cases and 
are prepared to meet them. I am confident, however, that this 
conference will assist us to improve our influence. 

“I want young men to appreciate that the War Department 
is thoroughly alive to the necessity of upbuilding, physically, 
mentally, morally and religiously, those over whom it exercises 
control, and will lend every effort to that end.” 

“The Army can provide military training itself, but needs 
it to make better citizens of soldiers in every way than they 
would be if they had not come to us for military training. 

“We want to surround them with the best influences, so 
that they may continue to develop and improve and take their 
places in their home communities among the most respected 
citizens. ’ ’ 

There are some who cannot understand how any religion, 
especially the Christian religion, which is supposed to be one 
of love and good will, can teach man to love his neighbor and 
at the same time make him believe that it is right to kill him 
and burn his property, if told to do so by some one who has a 
little more authority. There are those who are inclined to think 
a m'an a liar and a hypocrite if he pretends a religious love for 
his neighbor and at the same time stands ready to plunge a 
bayonet into that neighbor’s heart. 

It is not surprising that a Methodist bishop and some of 
other denominations should accept an invitation from Mr. Weeks 
to go to Washington to attend a conference. He is a member of 
the Cabinet and an invitation from him is considered a great 
honor. It is a historical fact which will not be denied that before 
the late war Germany was regarded as one of the leading na¬ 
tions of the earth. Aside from her military hallucinations, 
which the United States seems to have adopted, Germany w r as 
perhaps the foremost nation of the world. Students from every 


THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE 119 

civilized country on the globe were to be found in her institu¬ 
tions of learning. She excelled in music, science, art, inventions 
and culture. Her ships were found on every sea. But war has 
left her so poor that thousands of her men, women and children 
must starve to death unless fed by foreign charity. 

She began the great w r ar by breaking a solemn treaty which 
Germans denominated a scrap of paper, and Germans who 
claimed they w’ere for peace were for war as soon as the war cry 
sounded. Of course the military men were in their element when 
war was declared, for war is their business ;■ but the theologians, 
doctors of divinity, professors, authors and poets were even more 
bitter in their denunciation than the military men themselves. 
All that have been mentioned, including business men, were a 
unit for Germany in everything. They were long, very long on 
patriotism, but they did not have a vestige of humanity. If she 
had possessed less patriotism and more humanity or more sense 
she would have saved herself and the world millions of lives 
and billions of treasure. She claimed all the time to be for 
peace, and kept the military for self protection in case others 
wanted to fight. Have we not heard the same plea for years, 
and do we not hear it today? 

Will Secretary of War Mr. Weeks and Secretary of the 
Navy Mr. Denby say that they are doing as much for peace as 
for war? Have they not taken certain members of Congress 
on junketing trips with the idea of getting support for large war 
appropriations? Was Mr. Weeks not obliged to leave one of 
these trips on the Pacific coast to meet the so-called religious 
conference at Washington ? We let Mr. Louis Ludlow of the 
Columbus, Ohio, Dispatch tell the story in his own way. He 
says: 

“Edwin Denby, Secretary of the Navy, who is the salt 
water chieftain of the Cabinet, announces that he will take a 
congressional party on another long and luxurious trip of in- 


120 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


spection, starting from New York City July 16 on the “Chau- 
mont,” a government vessel. The east coast will be inspected 
thoroughly and leisurely. Then the Panama canal will be given 
the once over and the party will continue its inspection slowly 
through the dreamy haze of the Pacific up to Seattle. It will be 
the longest inspection trip of the year, as the party is not due to 
reach New York on the return voyage until September 21. 

‘‘Col. “Buzz’’ Stephens, representative from Cincinnati, 
who is a member of the naval affairs committee, has signed up 
for the coming trip. Col. “Buzz” has a nature that lends itself 
readily to these ordeals. He likes to travel and is fond of com¬ 
pany. Therefore, when there is any inspecting to be done he. is 
ready to take his punishment. When Secretary Denby earlier 
this year took a congressional group to Panama on the “Hender¬ 
son,” Col. “Buzz” was in the party and on his return he as¬ 
serted that the champagne dispensed by the President of Panama 
was the best champagne he ever inspected. In fact, he was of 
the opinion that nobody had ever inspected anything finer. 

“The ‘Chaumont’ will be a well-provisioned boat when it 
fares forth to chop the briny waves. There is nothing that is 
halting or lame about the commissary arrangements of the 
U. S. S. ‘Grant’ which is now plowing the southern waters en 
route to Alaska with Secretary of War Weeks and a large con¬ 
gressional party on board. People cannot do a thorough job of 
inspection without sufficient aliment to sustain them. 

“Beautiful cards, giving the menu of Sunday dinner served 
on the ‘Grant’ April 29, have been sent back to Washington by 
members of the party. When the secretaries and sweet stenog¬ 
raphers who were left behind looked over that menu they giggled, 
because one of the many outstanding features of the dinner was 
‘boiled corned pig’s cheek with Lima beans.” They could im¬ 
agine their bosses having a real swell time smoking twenty-five 
cent cigars and eating pig’s cheeks.” 

Will either Mr. Weeks or Mr. Denby deny what the cor¬ 
respondent says ? Will they say that these junketing trips were 
not for the purpose of getting support for their program, which 
is the largest possible appropriation for war? Do they expect 
any man who was wined and dined at government expense and 


THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE 121 

toted around in a government vessel to vote for peace? Do men 
gather figs of thistles? 

I have already said that it is not surprising that a few 
notables could be found who would consider it a high honor to 
accept the invitation of a member of the Cabinet to attend a 
so-called religious convention, men who may profess the Chris¬ 
tian religion but put more faith in war than they do in peace. 
Mr. "Weeks mentions one bishop and one college president who 
were of the sixty who were present. Eight of the most promi¬ 
nent sent out the following resolutions, among others: 

“Peace at home within our own country, peace among all 
nations of the earth is a sacred mission to which America has de¬ 
voted herself and her resources. To pursue it unarmed and un¬ 
defended would be the quickest way to invite war. Against the 
curse of militarism America has traditionally set herself. 

“ Militarism is absolutely strange to the genius of her insti¬ 
tutions. Her army in time of war is a citizen army, her army 
in time of peace is a volunteer army. Civilians direct her army 
and navy: the existence and upkeep of both are contingent upon 
the will of a representative congress. 

“The army and navy of the United States have always been 
essential to the life and welfare of the republic. The army and 
navy of the United States command, therefore, the respect of 
every true citizen. 

“We deprecate any attempt made under the cloak of re¬ 
ligion and in the name of a false pacificism, to deny the support 
of the churches to the well being of our army and navy. ’’ 

Those who shared the favor of the Secretary of War and 
passed resolutions favoring both peace and war, seem to forget 
that never before have nearly all the nations been in favor of 
peace and have signed a treaty agreeing to take steps to abolish 

war. 

The world has lost faith in an armed peace which has been 
tried for centurias, only to be proved over and over a failure. 


122 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


Of the millions of earnest peace men and women in the United 
States only sixty, and many of them perhaps under government 
pay, attended the so-called religious conference of Mr. Weeks. 
There are millions who believe that any man who is earnest in 
the cause of peace acts peace as well as talks it. The resolutions 
passed at Washington will have about as much influence, if 
properly understood, as the resolution of the three tailors of 
Tooley Street. The New York World of June 11, 1923, thus 
editorily speaks of the conference of Mr. Weeks: 

“ ‘I feel personally/ says Secretary Weeks, ‘as all men must 
do who have passed the meridian of life, a growing inclination 
toward religion and religious life. ... I am fearful about 
the results that have come and are coming from the late w r ar. 
The civilization of the world is threatened.’ 

‘ ‘ Mr. Weeks is right in believing that this civilization needs 
stabilizing, right too in believing that religion might save civil¬ 
ization by preventing another slump into the chaos and mad¬ 
ness which accompanied and followed the European conflict. 
But this cannot be done by a religion that gets behind the op¬ 
posing armies, fights on both sides and splits 50-50 on interna¬ 
tional disputes. Such a faith cannot save civilization, cannot 
even save itself, for it will go down with the fall of the civiliza¬ 
tion of which it was a part. The religion that is to save civiliza¬ 
tion must prevent war, must stand in the way of war altogether. 
The Occident cannot afford to worship a god of battles.” 

Some time ago the statement was made that most of our 
expenses go for was past or present in some form. Secretary 
Weeks rushed into print to tell what a prevaricator the one was 
who ventured to make such a statement and proceeded to show 
what our war expenses are. Herbert Brown is at the head of 
the efficiency department of the United States government, and 
I simply quote his figures. He says: 

“Eighty-five per cent of the money paid to the government 
in taxes goes for the maintenance of the national defense and 
past wars. Using the 1924 budget as a basis Mr. Brown esti- 






THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE 


123’ 


mates the fate of the taxpayer's dollar as follow’s: For the 
veteran’s bureau, 25 cents; for the army and navy, 17 cents; 
for special activities pertaining to the war, such as war con¬ 
tracts, railroad settlements, etc., 4 cents; for interest, 28 cents; 
for retirement of public debt, 11 cents, and for the civil adminis¬ 
tration of the government, 15 cents. This means that only 15 
per cent of all money received from the taxpayers is devoted to 
the actual running of the government.” 

If Mr. Weeks wants to challenge the knowledge and truth¬ 
fulness of the chief of the efficiency department he can do so r 
but most people will take Mr. Brown’s word because they think 
he knows what he is talking about, and he is evidently not afraid 
of the scarecrow’ set up to frighten Congress into granting big 
appropriations for w^ar purposes. Those w-ho are in favor of 
preparing for peace instead of war, especially the club women, 
think that, though comparatively new citizens, they are as much 
entitled to their opinion as Secretary Weeks is to his. They 
think it high time that peace should have a fair trial and that 
a League of Nations wdth an international court to settle dis¬ 
putes may succeed wdiere threats and displays of force have for 
centuries resulted only in bitterness and resistance. The women 
who have become citizens realize that their first duty is to the 
country rather than to a political party, and that the great ques¬ 
tion now to be settled is whether we shall have world peace or 
w r ar. They believe with Major General John F. O’Ryan, re¬ 
cently retired, when he says: “I w^ould be a traitor to my coun¬ 
try if I did not do everything in my power to abolish war. 

A few r months ago Secretary Weeks was complaining bit¬ 
terly to the w T ar authorities that women’s clubs throughout the 
country w’ere making trouble, that many of the members didn’t 
understand the situation. In other w’ords he attributed their 
fault finding to ignorance. Now, in November, 1923, he sends 
them a message in w T hich he states wdth evident pleasure that 
the United States is ready for w^ar. Does he expect to show the 


124 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


women that they were ignorant of the situation by telling them 
that they were right ? That he was not only preparing for war, 
but is now ready to tight? Mr. Weeks knows that it takes two 
sides to make a war, but he is careful not to tell who is to bo on 
the other side. He is ready, but who is the other fellow? Does 
he know of anybody, except the officers of the army and navy, 
w r ho even think of war? The question has been asked over and 
over, “Who talks of fighting us?” But neither Mr. Weeks nor 
anybody else has given an answer. Does he or any one else 
know of any nation that is not having trouble to pay its legiti¬ 
mate debts of peace? Can Mr. Weeks or any one else name a 
right-minded man, outside of those who are directly or indirectly 
making money out of war, who does not want perpetual peace? 
What everybody wants they will surely have. 

Nothing that Secretary Weeks has ever done shows that he 
believes in peace unless it arises from fear of armies and navies. 
I understand that he has recently appointed a woman, Miss Anita 
Phipps, to look after the woman’s clubs that are too peaceful 
and imbued with the idea that they have any right to think ex¬ 
cept in terms of war. If a club thinks it time for nations to 
settle their disputes in accordance with the principles of the 
Christian religion, that the United States should help rather than 
hinder, I am told that it is the duty of Miss Phipps to convince 
the members that their safety depends on a large army and navy. 
The Cleveland, Ohio, Press says that not being a mother herself 
Miss Phipps will find it easy to tell the mothers of America what 
splendid men war will make of their boys. 


CHAPTER VII. 


War Inconsistent With Religion. 

“I abominate war as unchristian. I hold it as the 
Greatest of crimes.” —Brougham. 

Some criticism has been made by the unthinking and the 
uncaring of President Wilson’s remark, that we are too proud 
to fight. We ought to be too proud to fight, if we are not. No 
doubt President Wilson had to overcome a proper sense of pride 
when necessity compelled him to declare war against Germany, 
a people professing the same religion and having the same civil¬ 
ization. We had learned much from her scientists. Her musi¬ 
cians and historians were among the best in the world. We had 
thousands of students in her universities and some of the ablest 
teachers in our higher institutions of learning were from Ger¬ 
many. Millions of her people had become citizens of the United 
States, and it was unreasonable to expect a man of learning 
and culture to change at once from a man of peace to one of 
war. The thought that this was to be a war to end war was 
perhaps the only thing to sustain him. Every man and every 
nation should have too much pride, or self respect, which is a 
definition of pride, to engage in contests of brute force to settle 
anything. If all men had possessed pride enough not to fight, 
thousands of lives and billions of treasure that have been worse 
than wasted might have been saved to the world, and ideas of 
honor and humanity, instead of suspicion and hatred, been in¬ 
culcated. 

We do not think of men of culture and refinement as having 
bloody noses and clawed up faces acquired in contest of brute- 


126 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


force. Those who have no pride, no self respect and care noth¬ 
ing for the opinion of others may go behind the barn to see 
whether they can outbite, outstrike or outkick others who are 
willing to be classed among those who have more muscle than 
sense. Instead of saying that they fight like cats and dogs, or 
like tigers or like devils, the danger seems to be that the heathen 
may say '‘they fight like Christians,’* as the strongest simile 
they can use. Unfortunately when a score of nations calling 
themselves Christians engage in cutting one another’s throats, 
poisoning the very air others breathe, destroying men, women, 
children and property by secretly blowing up one another's ves¬ 
sels, their religion and their missionaries are discredited by the 
heathen they aim to convert. 

There was a time when a man was not too proud to meet 
another on the duelist’s field and allow himself to be shot unless 
he was quick enough to kill the other fellow. A man might stain 
his hands with blood and his soul with murder to vindicate a 
doubtful point of honor, but adding the higher crime seemed 
to make his honor all right among those whose ideas were equalled 
only by those who believe in war, morally the crime of crimes, to 
settle international differences of opinion. 

If Alexander Hamilton had possessed a proper pride he 
would have refused the challenge to settle a trifling grievance 
by either being the victim or victor in such a wicked farce. If 
he had possessed the moral courage to withstand the charge of 
physical cowardice, his valuable life would not have been snuffed 
out at Weehauken by one who was not too proud to commit 
murder, though it made him a despised creature to the day of 
his death. We have made some progress since Hamilton’s death 
in the matter of the duel. Though it was thought to be as firmly 
fixed as war, and could never be abolished, it is now regarded as 
an outlaw. The disputes once settled on the field, misnamed the 
field of honor, are now disposed of in a court of justice, recog- 


WAR INCONSISTENT WITH RELIGION 127 

nizing the fact that the community is interested in the settlement 
of all questions. 

Even in Russia the duel is regarded as outgrown by civil* 
ization, though the infinitely worse evil of war is still recognized. 
A few weeks ago two officers in Trotzky’s army were suitors for 
the hand of a pretty actress. As she indicated no choice between 
them, they decided to fight a duel to settle the matter. She 
attended the event and even held the head of the dying duelist 
while the victor called an ambulance. Soon after the affair the 
actress and the victor found themselves on trial for their lives, 
charged with murder. Russia evidently looks on duelling as 
barbarous, foolish and out of keeping with civilization. It is 
true that she keeps a large standing army, but the United States, 
the strongest nation on earth, sets her the example under the 
excuse of self defense. 

General Tasker H. Bliss is reported as saying shortly after 
the last great war: “If the clergymen of the United States want 
to secure a limitation of armaments they can do it now without 
further waste of time. The responsibility is entirely with the 
professing Christians of the United States. If another w r ar like 
the last should come, they will be responsible for every drop of 
blood that will be shed and for every dollar wastefully ex¬ 
pended.” 

This is a serious charge and the more serious because coming 
from a man who has been leading armies. If one had nothing 
else to judge by than these words, he might think that General 
Bliss intends this as a threat rather than a prediction; but he 
spoke more recently before the graduates of Western Reserve 
College and repeated his objections to war and the responsibility 
of professing Christians. The most ardent peace man could sanc¬ 
tion the address. General Bliss is retired and can speak his senti¬ 
ments without fear of being court martialed. Besides, he is 
growing toward the end of the earthly race and presumably 


128 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


thinks less of the glory of war than do younger men. Perhaps 
he agrees with Shakespeare when he says: “Dreams, indeed, are 
ambitions, for the very substance of the ambitious is merely the 
shadow of a dream.’’ 

I am indebted to the Cleveland Plain Dealer for the follow¬ 
ing account of General Tasker H. Bliss’s remarks before the 
students of Western Reserve College at their commencement in 
June, 1923: 

‘tit is up to the business men of America to lead the way to 
an organization of the nations that will outlaw war. 

“If business men can devise no way by which co-operation 
in domestic business can be extended to international business, 
it may be no long time before we ourselves fight for the possession 
of an oil field and pay more in blood for it than we get in oil! 

“To say that the nations can co-operate successfully to make 
war, as the allies did, but that it is not worth while to attempt it 
to prevent war, is simply to dethrone reason. 

“There are many who now, at least, think that even such an 
association of nations is too much, as many others think that it is 
too little. The latter say that it is as weak as a new-born infant, 
that it has no teeth. But it can grow to be just as strong as 
nature intends it, and its teeth, when they come, will be teeth 
and not fangs. 

“The United States must surrender something it has claimed 
as a right, for even the man of the stone age had to surrender 
some of his “rights” when he first emerged from the isolation 
of his own cave and began to associate with his fellows for the 
good of all. 

“There are some eight—at most, ten—nations whose un¬ 
settled relations with each other will determine now and for a 
long time to come peace or war for the world. Because they are 
ill-defined, their relations are misunderstood. 

“John H. Clarke, former justice of the United States Su¬ 
preme Court, who resigned to accept leadership of the League 
of Nations Non-Partisan Association, and who was elected a 
trustee of the university, sat on the platform, frequently nod¬ 
ding approval of the general’s remarks.” 


129 


WAR INCONSISTENT WITH RELIGION 

When General Bliss says that the clergymen and professing 
Christians of the United States have it in their power to reduce 
armaments at once, if they have the inclination, he evidently 
knows what he is talking about, because he is but voicing what 
is known by other observers. No army or navy can be kept up 
without money and no money will be forthcoming except it be 
appropriated by those who profess to be Christians, because a 
large part of those who make the laws are connected with some 
church. Hence war is kept up by nominal Christians, and if 
they do not want to go into an association with other nations to 
abolish the w r orst evil of the human family the responsibility is 
theirs. It recalls the remark of a labor leader, “Damn the 
Christianity of the man who passes the hat or drinks the com¬ 
munion wine on Sunday, and who votes for war, the most wicked 
and barbarous thing known to humanity, the remainder of the 
week.’ * 

Clergymen and their loyal followers should accept the re¬ 
sponsibility mentioned by General Bliss and undertake to keep 
the peace of the world. The men who pretend to control the 
destinies of the world have made a botch of it and it is time that 
more goodness, if not more ability, should be shown in interna¬ 
tional affairs. People have paid too much attention to patriotism 
and too little to humanity. The church deals with humanity and 
never was it needed more than at present. When v'ord comes 
that millions are starving in China, or Russia, or the Far East, 
our humanity is touched and millions in money and food are 
forthcoming at once, but when our every-day humanity is ap¬ 
pealed to; when as the leading nation we are asked, nay impor¬ 
tuned, to unite with other nations in a common league to stay 
the hand of waste and destruction and thus add to the means of 
subsistence, w r e are told that Washington advised us one hundred 
and forty years ago to steer clear of foreigners and avoid en¬ 
tangling alliances, though the political party that opposed the 


130 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


League of Nations was most clamorous for engaging in the World 
War, the worst kind of an entanglement. 

If Washington could know the truth, the evils for which he 
has been made responsible; if he could know that his advice has 
been made an excuse to keep us isolated as a nation, and make 
us the greatest military nation on earth, he would be humiliated 
that he had said anything capable of being so misunderstood. 
Some of us seem to forget that nations, like individuals, ought to 
be progressive and that what was right and proper a hundred 
and thirty years ago may not be right today. This is an entirely 
different country from that which Washington knew, though 
the opponents of the League seem to think that the nation under¬ 
goes no change from age to age but is the same forever. 

Never since the morning stars first sang together has the 
world, and especially the United States, made such progress as 
it has since Washington's time. He was not to blame for never 
thinking of such things as railroad cars, trolley cars, or automo¬ 
biles. We think none the less of him because he never saw a 
sewing machine, or bath tub, or gas light or hundreds of articles 
in common use that he did not dream of. More men were lost 
in a single battle of the Great War than Washington commanded 
during his lifetime, and Mt. Vernon in his day was farther from 
New York or Philadelphia than it is today from any great city 
of the world. The world has grown much smaller and the na¬ 
tions vastly closer than a hundred years ago. There is no doubt 
that if Washington lived today he would be earnestly in favor 
of the League of Nations. Tq. avoid war he opposed foreign alli¬ 
ances, and for the same reason he would favor the League. It is 
preposterous that we were not among its first members, and more 
preposterous, if possible, are the excuses given for our isolation. 

Great changes have taken place in mental as well as material 
things within the recollection of those living. As late as 1841 
an American clergyman boasted that he owned thirty human 





WAR INCONSISTENT WITH RELIGION 131 

beings and would wade in blood knee-deep to prove his right to 
own them. This assertion, in the light of a few years’ experience, 
sounds like the vaporings of a madman. In a few years those 
who now' speak for war or say anything that tends to militate 
against universal peace w r ill seem as ridiculous as the clergyman 
w r ho owned slaves and claimed he w r as doing right. Washington 
in his time was considered one of the wealthiest men in America, 
but he w 7 ould have been obliged to live more than forty years 
longer to see the first bath tub in the United States. If he had 
an idea that such a dangerous innovation would ever be intro¬ 
duced and would have warned his people against its dangers in 
a farewell address, there might be some who w r ould insist on not 
using the tub because Washington had advised against it. He 
might have done so with entire propriety at that time, because 
the medical profession, those who are supposed to know most 
about matters of health and disease, declaimed emphatically 
against bath tubs, insisting that their use would conduce to many 
diseases. Boston passed an act forbidding bathing in the tub 
unless it was prescribed by a physician, and the act was not 
repealed until 1862. We have overcome our fear of bath tubs, 
but we still have those who, through ambition, greed or fear, 
favor large armies and navies. 

Though Bismarck only a few T years ago advocated isolation 
for Germany, we do not hear him quoted as a reason why the 
United States should adopt a similar course, but they seem to 
think what Washington said over one hundred and twenty-five 
years ago ought to bind this country hand and foot today. It is 
remarkable that some people use what Washington said about 
foreign entanglements as a rule for all time, but forget entirely 
what he said in far stronger terms of the dangers of party spirit. 
He says: “Let me now take a more comprehensive view and 
warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects 
of party spirit generally.” Did he use language as strong as this 


132 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


when talking of foreign entanglements ? He did know that party 
spirit is always dangerous, but how could he or any one else 
see what nations might demand in a hundred years to come ? 

A little further along he says that in governments such as 
ours party spirit is truly their worst enemy. He uses the term 
“worst,” so party spirit must be more of an evil and more dan¬ 
gerous than foreign entanglements, according to Washington, 
but did any one ever hear from the battalion of death or any one 
else opposed to the League anything of the dangers of party 
spirit, though there never was a time when condemnation of 
party spirit was more needed than since the Civil War? Wash¬ 
ington dilates at length on the dangers of party spirit, and 
winds up by saying: “A fire not to be quenched, it demands & 
uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, in¬ 
stead of warming, it should consume.” It was party spirit that 
defeated the League of Nations temporarily and nobody knows 
it better than those who are guilty. Those who quote what Wash¬ 
ington could not know and ignore what he did know are guilty 
of hypocrisy, to say the least. 

People are much alike the world over and there is no reason 
why those of any nation should go armed to the teeth to protect 
themselves from others who are as good or better than them¬ 
selves. I once heard an intelligent Pole who had been over most 
of the world telling his experiences with different peoples. He 
claimed that men who were treated kindly and w-ere led to think 
their visitor w r as acting in good faith had only kind treatment for 
the stranger in their gates. He was warned before going to 
Mexico never to turn his back to the “greasers,” as they were a 
bloodthirsty, treacherous lot. He disdained the advice and by 
treating them as one should treat another he never had truer 
friends than he found among those he had been warned against 
The Pittsburgh Sun makes no pretension of being better than 


WAR INCONSISTENT WITH RELIGION 133 

ordinary men, but it recently contained a sensible editorial under 
the title “Slandering a Race.” It says: 

‘ ‘ In the United States the Mexican is too often regarded as 
an unscrupulous, unprincipled coward, with a cigaret between 
his lips and a bloody dagger clutched in his hand. This is the 
“type” which has been presented in fiction, on the stage and in 
moving picture films. ‘In Mexico/ it is said, ‘The flowers have 
no odor, the birds no song, the men no honor, and the women 
no virtue/ A race with so little known to commend it should 
either be exterminated or given another hearing. 

“At such a hearing it would be found that in the republic 
south of the Rio Grande, the birds sing as sweetly as anywhere 
in the world; the flowers are as rich in perfume as in color; that 
people are as honorable and virtuous as those of any other na¬ 
tion where economic conditions are as bad. 

Preachers and the good people generally are convinced that 
they must act as well as talk, if the nations are to get away from 
the idea that the world is to be ruled longer by brute force. 
Ministers of the gospel realize as never before that they must act 
if their profession and their conduct are to be regarded as con¬ 
sistent; that it is of no use to send missionaries to teach the 
heathen a better way as long as the country from which the mis¬ 
sionaries come stains its hands and its soul with the blood of 
those who already profess the religion we assume to teach. The 
good people of the world are tired of war and demand a perma¬ 
nent peace which can come only from a court in which all na¬ 
tions have a part and which is as far above the court of war as 
heaven is above the earth. 

I give Mr. Kennedy Crumrine credit for the information 
that the United States was the first nation to advocate chartered 
foreign missions. As Mr. Crumrine is interested in all good 
work, and was recently awarded a service medal by the State 
Association of Pennsylvania for having spent more than fifty 
continuous years in Sunday School work, I take the statement as 


134 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


authoritative. Several years ago a bill was offered in the Con¬ 
necticut legislature asking a charter for a foreign missionary 
society. The bill was bitterly opposed on the ground that it 
would provide for exporting religion while we needed it all at 
home. The charter was granted after a contest, but could those 
who declaimed against the bill on the ground that we needed all 
our religion at home have seen how we treated other nations 
when they asked us to join them in trying to secure universal 
freedom from war, they would have more reason than ever for 
thinking we had no religion to spare. 

Criticism is often made of individuals for belonging to some 
orthodox church simply that they may play the part of the sin¬ 
ner more successfully among those who are sincere. I have 
heard of many individuals who were willing to become hypo¬ 
crites for the sake of a few dollars; but it is only since the World 
War that I have heard the Christian religion denounced as the 
religion of war. We profess to be the followers of the Prince 
of Peace and if we do not deserve the title there must be a rea¬ 
son for it. We have it on no less an authority than Mr. Fred B. 
Smith, who is chairman of the Federal Council of the Churches 
of Christ in America. He was abroad for three months in the 
summer and fall of 1912 and spoke to more than 100,000 people 
in Europe and Asia, though there is more use in talking peace 
in this country, perhaps, than any other. On coming back Mr. 
Smith says: 

“It is hard to realize that the descriptions of Christianity 
written and spoken by the people of the orient are meant to 
apply to the same religion to which we occidentals have pledged 
our faith and 'built our edifices. 

“After one of my public addresses in India, a noble native 
minister took me aside and said: ‘You must know that edu¬ 
cated people of this country look upon Christianity as a warring, 
blood-spilling religion.’ Another native East Indian translated 
to me an article from a prominent paper in which the writer 


WAR INCONSISTENT WITH RELIGION 


135 


associated Mohammedanism and Christianity as being kindred 
faiths, hut gave the Moslems the advantage of sincerity in that 
they freely advocated the sword while the Christians talked and 
professed peace while waging the worst wars in all history. 

“Another prominent Indian Christian, in extending to me a 
welcome to his native land, went so far as to warn me strongly 
not to use the word ‘Christianity’ in my public addresses. He 
said: ‘Christianity is here regarded as the name of a western 
religion which has failed. You can preach “Christ” and will 
be gladly heard, but you cannot preach “Christianity” and re¬ 
ceive respectful treatment.’ 

“The east says: ‘Christianity, a cannon ball, a submarine 
and a gas bomb go together,’ while the west says: ‘Christ is the 
prince of peace, and the Christian church is the instrument to 
make His doctrine effective throughout the world.’ We western¬ 
ers must face the cold fact that thus far Christian teaching has 
not produced peace even between nations where it is the faith 
of a preponderance of the people. Passing peace resolutions 
does not remove the impression this fact has made on oriental 
minds. 

“In this hour of history it is infinitely more important for 
the sake of foreign missionary work that the Christian church 
should organize to outlaw war than that more foreign mis¬ 
sionaries should be sent abroad. 

“If the church.fails in this need and opportunity, more and 
worse wars are coming. The stage setting is perfect for more 
outbreaks. The Christian church is the only organization with 
the world wide contacts that can serve as a common binder for 
preserving peace. 

“If the church fails to assume a new leadership in behalf of 
peace and fails to remove the sting of that war interpretation of 
Christianity held by the oriental mind, we may as well banish 
our hopes of winning Asia and the world to Christ for many 
generations. I believe the great war has set back by many years 
what might have been the progress of Christianity in China and 
India.” 

Tn view of what took place during the late war, no one need 
be surprised at the feeling shown toward Christianity in the Far 


136 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


East. We not only had a fight among Christians but we refused 
to accept the League of Nations which was supposed to be an 
agreement among the nations to settle all international disputes 
in a civilized court. Most ministers are willing to admit that 
there is far too much truth in what Mr. Smith says, and they 
are determined, as far as their voice and influence goes, to show 
that the Chrislian religion is not a misnomer. 

As a confirmation of what Mr. Smith saw and heard of 
Christianity when abroad, I give the following from the Western 
Christian Advocate under the heading, “Pagans Cursing Chris¬ 
tianity”: 

“Christianity is engaged in one of its bitterest contests 
with paganism and is being openly flouted by pagans, we are 
told, as the greatest piece of hypocrisy ever practised on an 
unsuspecting world. In the Orient opposing forces are said to 
be refusing to submit to the control of the Christian faith and 
to be seeking to defend themselves against the encroachments and 
claims of the missionaries who represent the “foreign” religion. 
Intelligent natives are hurling into the teeth of the missionaries 
such caustic and formidable replies that they ‘are almost stag¬ 
gering our leaders. ’ 

“The native faiths are filling the Far East with a descrip¬ 
tion of Western Civilization as a war-loving and war-promoting 
organization. They are claiming that Christianity, a cannon¬ 
ball, a submarine, a gas-bomb, and a battle ship all go together. 
They hurl into our teeth the accusation that Christ is the Prince 
of Peace and the Christian Church the instrument for making 
that doctrine effective throughout the world, but that the cold 
fact is that thus far Christ’s teaching has not produced that 
result even in nations where it has held a preponderance of the 
people under its control. It passes peace resolutions with armies 
training in the field. It proclaims the coming of the day of world 
peace with the navies at target practise in its sequestered harbors. 

“These statements are but part of the many accusations now 
being made against Christianity, which threaten the ultimate 
success of our missionary program. We have anticipated the 


WAR INCONSISTENT WITH RELIGION 137 

hour when pagan religions would come face to face with the 
claims of Christianity as a world religion. That day has arrived. 
It brings with it the most critical hour in the history of our 
Holy Christianity. If there was ever a time when we need to 
have faith in God and stand steadfast, unmovable, abounding in 
the works of the Lord, it is now.” 

The Advocate is proposing the hair of the dog to cure his 
bite. Some of the brightest pagans have been puzzled in years 
past when our missionaries have told of the religion of the 
Prince of Peace, which they have come to explain and have the 
heathen adopt, to know why a Christian nation should appro¬ 
priate an immense sum every year for the purposes of war. 
In fact, a great many Americans wonder when they read that 
two thirds of our congressmen belong to some Christian church, 
professing to believe in the doctrine of peace and good will, 
whether they are not disloyal to their profession when they give 
their vote and influence to a big war appropriation in time of 
peace. No man can serve two masters. 

Evidently the pagans have heard that a score of so-called 
Christian nations recently spent several months in cutting one 
another’s throats, blowing one another to pieces and even poison¬ 
ing the very air that they expected other Christians to breathe. 
If this is a part of our religion, and actions speak louder than 
words, they want none of it. Would the editor of the Advocate 
not think them stupid if they thought this a good or even neces¬ 
sary part of our religion? The good editor may remain on his 
knees continually: he and other good men may pray until they 
are exhausted, but those who make the wars and make money out 
of them will sneer at their efforts. Votes and a little plain Eng¬ 
lish to those who appropriate millions of other’s money will 
bring results far sooner. Those fellows have little regard for 
prayer, but they listen to votes. 

To show how Christianity as practiced is regarded by other 
religions I need but to quote from a sermon by the late Rabbi 


138 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


Joseph Krauskopf. He recently delivered two sermons in Phila¬ 
delphia in the first of which he gave his attention to what he 
was pleased to call “Godless Jews,” and in the second he drew 
a sharp contrast between the religion as taught by the New Testa¬ 
ment, and as practiced for centuries by so-called Christian na¬ 
tions. Judging by the comments in different newspapers that 
profess to believe in the doctrines of the New Testament, I think 
the strictures of Rabbi Krauskopf are well deserved. Among 
many other things the Rabbi declared: 

“That were Christians the world over to begin today to 
practice their religion we would observe before the passing of a 
year, half the miseries of mankind wiped out, half the hatreds 
assuaged, half the greeds overcome, half the wrongs righted, 
half the strifes pacified, and half the wars ended.” 

“Tt is not for nothing that Christianity is in bad repute in 
the orient. Had its followers practiced there the religion of 
peace and good will, the religion that lets people have and use 
what is their own, the religion that prohibits killing and stealing, 
half of the orient might have been Christian today. Whereever 
they turn they are reminded of the cruel and rapacious talons of 
the so-called Christian, who controls today more than 10,000,000 
square miles of Asiatic territory, an extent even greater than 
that of the whole of Europe.” 

One of the most remarkable addresses ever made on the sub¬ 
ject of war and armaments is undoubtedly that made at the Lake 
Mohonk peace conference by Rev. Charles E. Jefferson, D. D., 
LL. D., pastor of Broadway Tabernacle, New York. How insig¬ 
nificant would the greatest general or admiral feel his antedi¬ 
luvian case to be were he to attempt any answer to this address I 
How different matters would be if a man with Dr. Jefferson's 
knowledge and confidence in human nature were to be entrusted 
with the harmony of the world instead of men who depend on 
force and fear and who take pride in saying to the world, “Now 
we are ready for war!” As this address was printed in the rec- 


WAR INCONSISTENT WITH RELIGION 


m 


ord of the 64th Congress when the war spirit ran high, it will 
be appropriate in a book devoted to the cause of peace. Dr. 
Jefferson took for his subject, “Do Large Armaments Provoke 
War? 

“My answer is they do, and these are my reasons: First, 
because of their nature. They are in reality enormous masses of 
explosives. The explosives are of two kinds, chemical and 
human. Their presence deranges the normal beating of the 
world’s heart. We can never have national health on this planet 
until swollen armies and navies are abolished. They create a 
state of mind out of which war, soon or late, must inevitably 
come. They are fomenters and feeders of fear. Dump down in 
front of my house a ton of dynamite or gunpowder and I at once 
become nervous. I can not help it. You may say that they will 
not hurt me. That does not quiet me a bit. I know there are 
many bad boys and mischief-making men in the world, and I 
can not sleep sound with that pile of explosives at my front door. 
Great armaments are huge heaps of gunpowder and guncotton 
and dynamite and lyddite and melinite, and when they are piled 
along the national frontiers, the nations can not work with quiet 
pulse, or sleep a sleep that is sound. For 40 years Europe has 
tossed and moaned in a hideous nightmare. War itself came at 
last as a relief. Fear begets suspicion. Out of suspicion springs 
dislike, dislike deepens into hate, 'hate rushes on to bloodshed. 
Fear, suspicion, dislike, hate, slaughter, these are steps in the 
stairway down which nations pass to hell—shoved down by their 
armaments. 

“But armaments are more than metal and chemicals. Arma¬ 
ments are made largely of flesh and blood. Armies are men, so 
also are navies. Large armies and navies mean tens of thou¬ 
sands, hundreds of thousands, millions of men. Along, then, 
with your tons of chemical explosives you have explosive mate¬ 
rial done up in the bodies of a vast multitude of men. These 
men must have officers—hundreds, thousands of them—thirty- 
five thousand to every million men—and out of every hundred 
of them you can expect one or more Bernhardis—men who be¬ 
lieve that war is a biological necessity; that it is the mother of 
all the virtues; and that every nation must perform these deeds 


140 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


of blood and valor which, above everything else, bring national 
renown. Bernhardi is not simply a Prussian; he is a Russian, a 
Frenchman, an 'Englishman, an American. He lives everywhere. 
He is in every army. He is a type which persists. He is a 
product of the barracks. You can not eliminate him. You must 
reckon with him. He will talk. He will write. He will organ¬ 
ize a war party. The bigger the army, the taller is Bernhardi; 
the mightier the war party. You may foment it, but you can not 
change it. If you want an army, you must take Bernhardi. If 
you insist on a big army, you will have a crowd of Bernhardis. 
It is cruel injustice to say that all military and naval officers 
want war. Many of them abhor war with an abhorrence deep 
and true. But you cannot have an army in which there will not 
be at least one Bernhardi, and in every army in every country 
today there are many Bernhardis. Now Bernhardi is a provoca¬ 
tive of war. He always has his eye on the next war. It is inevi¬ 
table, imminent. He dreams of power—of conquest. He moves 
heaven and earth to plant his ideas in the public mind. By his 
propaganda he makes his nation feared. He kindles at last a fire 
which may burn up the world. 

“Huge armies give birth to Bernhardi, also to a twin brother, 
Krupp. You can not have an army without Krupp. The army 
is dependent on him. Without him the army can do nothing. 
Krupp is the munition maker. He manufactures the guns and 
the ships and all the explosives. The bigger your army the 
taller becomes Krupp. If the nation votes millions for arma¬ 
ment, Krupp is pleased; if it votes tens of millions, Krupp is 
delighted; if it votes hundreds of millions, Krupp is hilarious; 
if it votes billions, Krupp dances for joy. The bigger the mili¬ 
tary and naval budgets the happier is Krupp and the mightier. 
He employs more and more men, adds more acres to his plant, 
amasses more capital, and extends his influence until he looms 
the chief man in the nation. He becomes at last a demigod, 
able even to control the national weather. He launches inter¬ 
national storms: he covers the heavens with clouds; he sends 
the lightning, and while the lightning is playing he tightens 
his clutches on the national treasury; he starves every depart¬ 
ment of national activity in order to convert national treasure 
into guns. He has costly machinery; it must be kept running. 


141 


WAR INCONSISTENT WITH RELIGION 

He has thousands of workmen; they cannot be allowed to be 
idle. Hence improved guns must be introduced every few years, 
and battleships must go to the junk heap before they have seen 
service. A great man is Krupp. He is not merely a Prussian, 
he is a Russian, a Frenchman, a Britisher, an American. He 
has different names in different lands, but he is everywhere the 
same man. 

He is a patriot, and he always puts money in his purse. You 
must get acquainted with him if you want to know why great 
armaments are a menace. 

“ Krupp works through the journalist. Without the print¬ 
ing press he is undone. Newspapers when owned by men of low 
type are the most dangerous of all the poisoners of the wells of 
international good will. Their capacity for mischief can not be 
measured. In all countries the big newspapers, with few ex¬ 
ceptions, are for big armaments. Krupp and the millionaire 
journalist usually join hands. They are both men of power. 
It would be unfair to say that the munition maker bribes or 
hires the editor. He simply uses him. 

The editor is indispensable when it comes to creating war 
panics and stampeding the nation into wilder schemes of pre¬ 
paredness. He crowds his columns with insolent gossip and 
lying rumors and fills his readers ’ hearts with dark imagina¬ 
tions and terrifying fears. He excites hatred toward every 
nation against which he sets his heart. Lord Northcliffe, for 
instance, owns the Daily Mail, the Daily Mirror, the Daily 
Graphic, the Daily Express, the evening News, the Daily Times, 
and the weekly Dispatch. This is what Lord Northcliffe said 
several years ago in an interview in the Paris Matin: “We de¬ 
test the Germans cordially. I will never allow the least thing 
to be printed in my journal which might wound France, but I 
would not let anything be printed which might be agreeable to 
Germany.” There you see the journalist at his worst. North¬ 
cliffe is found in every one of the world’s capitals. He lives in 
Washington, New York, Chicago, San Francisco. You can not 
get rid of him. You can not silence him. You must reckon 
with him. He has matches, and you jeopardize civilization 
when you pile up the gunpowder around him. Are large arma¬ 
ments provocative of war? Yes; for the reason that they are 


142 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


explosives and are within the reach of Bernhardi and Krupp 
and Northcliffe. 

“There is a second reason why huge armaments provoke 
War. They are confessions of distrust, and therefore strain and 
finally break down international friendship. Without confidence 
nothing goes on well in this world. Armaments smash confi¬ 
dence to splinters. Nations all arm now in defense. They them¬ 
selves seek only justice and the things which are right, but 
their neighbors, alas ! are unprincipled rascals, against which 
they must be on their guard. To arm in defense is therefore 
an insult to the nation you arm against. A nation multiply¬ 
ing its guns, and all the time protesting its arms solely in de¬ 
fense, is slandering its neighbors. It is saying, “My neigh¬ 
bors are cutthroats and bandits and I must be ready to beat 
them off with a club.” That is what we say to Japan when we 
strengthen our Pacific defenses, and that is what we say to 
Germany when we talk about $500,000,000 in five years for new 
ships to be ready for her when she comes. When once bad feel¬ 
ing is engendered it is easier to fight. 

“Armed peace is a form of war. Armament is in reality an 
attack on some other nation. That nation meets it with a 
counter-attack. Launch a dreadnaught and there is a counter- 
dreadnaught, a cruiser and there is a counter-cruiser, a sub¬ 
marine and there is a counter-submarine. You can not arm for 
defense without compelling others to arm in defense, and when 
the defenses have reached a certain point of perfection there 
will be war. Just now many Americans are trying to draw a 
line between armament for defense and armament for aggression. 
There is no such line possible. What is defensive for you will 
be offensive for your neighbor. Men say: ‘We arm not for 
war, but against war/ and think they have said something. 
They have said nothing. You can’t change a situation by alter¬ 
ing a preposition. It makes no difference at all whether you 
arm for offense or defense—for war or against war. The ef¬ 
fect is precisely the same and the budgets are the same. Great 
Britain is armed for defense only. A navy was necessary, she 
said, to protect her commerce. Germany built up a vast com¬ 
merce, and acting on the British philosophy, she said she had 
to protect it with a fleet. Every German, from Yon Buelow 
down, declared it was only for defense, but no Englishman be- 


WAR .INCONSISTENT WITH RELIGION 143 

lieved it. Every Englishman declared that the British navy 
was solely for defense, but no German believed it. What is the 
use of fooling ourselves with words ? It is not what we say, but 
what we clo, that shapes the character and destiny of the world. 
England armed for defense, and Germany did the same, and 
they met at last on the field of blood. They did not want to 
fight. Every Englishman of note has said that within the last 
ten years. Every German in official position has said that Ger¬ 
many desired only the friendship of England. The Kaiser said 
it, and Marschall von Bieberstein and Prince Lichnowsky and 
Herr von Jagow, and all the rest of them. You may say they 
were lying. I can not go with you. I believe they were all 
honest men, and spoke the truth. The best men in Britain 
and Germany had no desire to fight. Those two great Elmpires 
were driven to war by their guns. The expanding squadrons 
of battleships on the North Sea simply drove them irresistibly 
apart, snapping the ties made sacred by the memories of a 
thousand years. 

In the third place, large armaments precipitate war, be¬ 
cause in times of national excitement the control of affairs 
passes inevitably into the hands of the most aggressive and best- 
organized body of men in the nation. As a recent writer in 
the Berliner Tageblatt says: “Even the most gifted and most 
industrious monarch disappears behind the machine. ’’ Now, 
the Army and Navy are machines. They are organized for 
swift and vigorous action. The English papers have prided 
themselves for years on the fact that in case of war the British 
Navy would get its blow in first, before the other nation had 
the time even to read in the papers that war had been de¬ 
clared. At the first Hague conference the head of the Ger¬ 
man delegation, Count Munster, disparaged arbitration, say¬ 
ing: “It would be injurious to Germany. Germany is pre¬ 
pared for war. She can mobilize her army in ten days. Arbi¬ 
tration simply gives rival powers time to put themselves in 
readiness.” At the same conference Sir John Fisher spoke for 
England. His argument was this: “The British Navy is pre¬ 
pared. A vast deal depends on prompt action by the Navy. 
The truce afforded bv arbitration proceedings will give other 
powers time to put themselves into complete readiness.” This 
is the spirit of the Army and Navy always. It is fundamental 


144 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


in military tactics that the blow shall be swift. No time must 
be wasted on reflection or on discussion. The machine, when 
ready, must move at once. It is disheartening, therefore, to 
hear just now so many Americans crying for guns and saying, 
‘We do not want war; we do not intend war/ just as though 
nations get what they want or intend. They get what they 
prepare for. In a crisis our big Army and Navy, if created, 
will fall into the hands of the then dominant political party, 
into the hands of the ruling faction of that party, into the 
hands of the most energetic group in that faction, into the 
hands of the most vigorous and ambitious individual in that 
group. The people will have nothing to say when the crucial 
hour arrives. Even the alleged rulers will have exceedingly 
little to say. It is the men who have been trained for war 
who, when the clock strikes, leap into the saddle and drag the 
Nation after them. That is what happened in Berlin in the 
feverish August of 1914. William II is a man of unusual 
strength, but when the Army chiefs all told him there must be 
no delay the fateful ultimatum was sent, and the war w T as on. 

Great armies and navies are of necessity the implacable foes 
of arbitral and judicial methods of settling international dis¬ 
putes. Militarists have scant patience with diplomatists who 
want to investigate and consider and reason. They do not care 
to untie knots; they prefer to cut them. In 1908, when Bosnia 
and Herzegovnia were taken by Austria there was no conference 
for discussion. Germany appeared in shining armor and the 
case was settled, not by reason but by the army. Later on, at 
Agadir, Great Britain appeared by the side of France in shin¬ 
ing armor. The case was settled not by reason but by the navy. 
It was those two settlements which unsettled the world. Big 
armaments shove reason aside and throw the purple over the 
shoulders of force. If you point a gun at me I can not reason. 
I fall back on my primitive instincts. If I am strong, the tiger 
in me comes to the front, and I try to knock you over or tear 
you to pieces. If I am weak, the fox in me becomes dominant 
and I trick you if I can. Guns cut the nerves of arbitration. 
Diplomatic pressure—which means the pressure of 16-inch guns 
—is a kind of pressure that squeezes out the life of justice and 
of liberty and leaves nations irritated and revengeful. 

“Great armies and great navies are a deadening, blighting,. 


WAR INCONSISTENT WITH REUGION 


14S 


intolerable curse. They are a nuisance and a menace, a plague 
and a scourge. The world can not breathe freely until they are 
eliminated.^ International diplomacy can not be sound, so long 
as these excrescences exist. World finances cannot be normal 
until this incubus is thrown otf. Our Christian ideals can not 
be realized so long as Ccesar sits on the throne of the world. 
The mailed fist is an enemy of Christ. Shining armor is an 
abomination to God. Hague conferences will make tardy prog¬ 
ress until we escape the domination of military-naval experts. 
Peace palaces are built in vain so long as competitive arma¬ 
ments surround them. The rights of humanity are never safe 
when propped up by huge engines of war. Great armaments 
must be gotten rid of. They will be when the people decree it. 
It is for all who love mankind to proceed to organize the world. 
Our fathers organized the thirteen Commonwealths in a Repub¬ 
lic. The principle was sound, and the thirteen have increased to- 
forty-eight. We must now help to organize the nations into a 
family to be governed by justice and liberty and good will. It is 
not for us to adopt the stupid European policy of armed peace, 
or to train every boy to shoot, which is the old Pequot ideal, or to 
give a new lease of life to a philosophy that is pagan and rotten; 
it is for us to bend all our energies at this crisis of history to the 
working out of a plan whereby the world’s armaments shall be 
melted, and the streams of gold and brain energy now devoted 
to the multiplication of the instruments of blood shall be con¬ 
secrated to the creation of those constructive and beneficent 
agencies and institutions which shall heal the running sores of 
the world, provide for its multitudinous and clamorous needs, 
and open the beautiful gates of a thousand years of peace.” 

Every one should read Dr. Jefferson’s “The men Behind 
the Guns.” The American Association for International Con¬ 
ciliation, New York, published it, but informs us that it will 
soon be out of print. As this document is too valuable to be 
out of reach we may publish it by arrangement when the present 
edition is exhausted. 

Dr. Jefferson makes it plain, interesting and convincing how 
the three forces scare the people into wars out of which the pro¬ 
moters make money and for which the people pay. 


CHAPTER VIII. 


Government Pays for War Propaganda. 

“Example is more forcible than precept. People look 
at my six days in the week to see what I mean on the 
• seventh.” —Rev. R. Cecil. 

Perhaps nothing shows more clearly how the military is 
intrenched in every country than the peace expedition of Henry 
Ford in 1915. Never was a more unselfish and humanitarian 
movement undertaken, a movement more in the interest of the 
people of the world, than that of Henry Ford when he chartered 
the Scandinavian liner at his own expense and took a load of 
peace advocates to Europe with the purpose of saving them from 
the ravages which he knew and they knew would inevitably 
follow a conflict of arms. The mission did not fail for lack of 
advocates, for among the number were men and women of na¬ 
tional and international reputation—such women as Jane Ad- 
dams and Mme. Rosika Schwimmer, well known in Europe and 
America as authors and charitable workers; Dr. Charles F. 
Aked, one of the most noted preachers in two continents; 
William J. Bryan, three times a candidate for President of the 
greatest country on earth, and one of the most eloquent orators 
of the world, and many others of ability and reputation. 

Henry Ford was a business man and perhaps paid but little 
attention to war or warriors, for he had no use for either. As a 
sensible man he knew that war is evil whether between capital 
and labor or between nations, and he had reason to believe that 
a ship load of intelligent peace men and women with a message 
for the financial and moral good of all, would be gladly heard. 


GOVERNMENT PAYS FOR WAR PROPAGANDA 147 

lie soon found, however, that those who make up the bulk of 
the population have nothing more to say about government than 
the grass beneath their feet; that a few men control the rank 
and file as they see fit. In many countries most of these are 
military men or semi-military men who think that nobody else 
knows how to govern, and they regard pacifists and peace men 
•and women as molly-coddles who ought to be squelched for the 
public good. 

To what was no doubt Mr. Ford’s surprise and disgust, he 
found that many of his own people, a nation that pretends to be 
for peace, religion, missionaries and everything good, clamored 
for war. If the millions in the United States, the strongest na¬ 
tion in the world, had stood loyally by him and his worthy 
cause, the result might have been different. Mr. Ford and his 
able advisers had nothing to sell; they had only sound advice to 
offer, the best that could be given, yet they found that every 
nation, no matter how much it may pretend to be for peace, nor 
how great its desire to convert the heathen to the Christian re¬ 
ligion, puts its faith in armies and navies rather than in peace 
and good will. 

While Mr. Ford was willing to spend millions to bring peace, 
the first thought of a peace ship to visit Europe on the eve of the 
most serious war that has ever occurred should be credited to 
Mine. Rosika Schwimmer, a Hungarian lecturer and journalist 
well knowm in Europe and the United States. It was in one of 
her lecture tours that she interested Mr. Ford in the peace ship 
enterprise. In 1918 she was appointed ambassador to Switzer¬ 
land, the only woman in the world to hold a similar position. 
She lately made a visit to the United 'States, and says that while 
the peace ship did not prevent the war, the enterprise was far 
from a failure because it showed that the United States was in¬ 
terested in peace. She attributes the lack of success to those 


148 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


who wanted to fight, because that was what they were prepared 
for, and to the scoffers in the United States. 

It was said on the floor of Congress that the workers for the 
armor plate interests and the powder trust did more for the 
cause of war in a few months than all the peace societies could 
do for peace in a century. On Sunday we quote the New 
Testament which says, “ Blessed are peace-makers for they shall 
be called the children of God,” but the remainder of the week 
we follow the advice of the man who wears a uniform and agree 
with the German soldier and writer, Bernhardi, who says, ‘'The 
attempt to abolish war is not only immoral and unworthy of 
humanity, but is an attempt to deprive man of his highest posses¬ 
sion, the right to take life for physical ends.” The German 
Nietzsche if anything is still worse, but our military men evi¬ 
dently believe him when he says, “Ye have heard it said of old 
time, ‘Blessed are the Peacemakers for they shall be called chil¬ 
dren of God, but I say unto you, Blessed are the war makers 
for they shall be called the children of Odin who is greater than 
Jehovah.” 

The average man spends but little time in studying military 
affairs and seems to take it for granted that the army and navy 
are necessary evils that civilization must endure for safety, 
wicked and expensive as they are. It is not hard to understand 
why some should believe to be true what many of us feel is false, 
because they have always been taught that safety depends on 
being ready to fight. Under the guise of patriotism humanity 
•has been ignored, and we are taught to love ourselves and look 
with suspicion, if not with hatred, on people who happen to be 
of another nation. 

The Chicago Tribune, which claims to be the leading paper 
of the country, for some time has kept standing the inconsistent 
saying, attributed to Admiral Farragut, which winds up with, 
“Right or wrong, my country.” This sounds very patriotic to 


GOVERNMENT PAYS FOR WAR PROPAGANDA 149 

the unthinking, but it offends the moral sense of those who recog¬ 
nize the fact that the right should always prevail. Right and 
wrong are unchanging principles and are not subject to the will 
or caprice of man. If all the newspapers of the country were 
to adopt the slogan of the Chicago Tribune, it would not change 
the facts. If our country is wrong, any man who has a proper 
respect for the truth will admit it and help to right the wrong. 
The government is strong. It is not supposed to have any of 
the weaknesses that so often beset the individual and is under 
obligation to respect the truth at all times. 

Through the understanding that the last war was to end 
war, many pacifists smothered their personal convictions and 
took part in the struggle, thinking they could afford to sacrifice 
their personal feelings to end a great world evil. Military men 
regard all peace people as pacifists and look on them as enemies 
of good government. If we were all pacifists, or even consistent 
peace men and women, there would be no more war, and thus the 
greatest evil that afflicts humanity would be abolished. The 
pacifist has at least one good idea, and that is more than may 
he said truthfully of many who clamor for an army and navy 
for protection. 

I cannot think of any dispute between nations that might 
not have been settled cheaper without war, not to speak of its 
cruelties and demoralization. No man pretends to know any good 
reason why France and Germany should have gone to war in 
1870, nor why the World War should have occurred, in which 
some so-called Christian nations were on one side and some on the 
other, throwing both open to the charge of inconsistency. There 
will perhaps be little difference of opinion as to the cause of the 
Civil War of 1861 which arrayed church against church and 
brother against brother. It is popularly supposed that it could 
be settled only by bloody force, and yet both sides would have 
gained enormously by a peaceable settlement. 


150 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


President Lincoln in 1862 proposed in a message to Con¬ 
gress that any state abolishing slavery before the year 1900 
should be paid for its slaves, the state remunerating the indi¬ 
vidual owners. This resolution passed both houses of Congress, 
but the fire eaters on both sides clamored for war and they got 
what they desired, though they well knew before the struggle was 
ended that they would have gained immensely by a peaceable 
settlement. Lincoln proposed to pay Delaware, which remained 
loyal, $400 for each slave, but the proposition was refused by 
the legislature. At this rate all the slaves in the United States 
would have cost much less than the war, to say nothing of the 
millions we have spent in pensions and are still spending. Con¬ 
gress paid $300 for every slave held in the District of Columbia 
when slavery was abolished in the District. The fact that more 
than 100,000 deserted during the Civil War on each side shows 
that the war was not popular, the rank and file having nothing 
to say as to whether we should have peace or war. 

The propaganda for settling national differences by force 
is world-wide. No nation is guiltless for none has set the others 
a good example. Since the last war, however, most of the na¬ 
tions have seen the uselessness, cruelty and wastefulness of war 
and have entered into a treaty with sister nations to settle dis¬ 
putes hereafter in a court of justice. If the United States, the 
nation which is credited with bringing victory to the allies, the 
one that did most to institute the League of Nations, had joined 
the League promptly instead of taking Germany’s place, no 
doubt that the world would be on a peace basis today, and we 
would not be charged with moral cowardice. 

This nation, which is generally regarded as a Christian coun¬ 
try, a majority of whose legislators belong to some Christian 
church, a nation three thousand miles from any foe that could 
be dangerous, has spent billions for war but nothing for peace. 
Is it surprising that many of our people still believe in wart 


GOVERNMENT PAYS FOR WAR PROPAGANDA 151 

We find that Maxim, Vickers, Lewis, Armstrong, Browning and 
other makers of rapid-fire guns have been sought by the govern¬ 
ment and paid a big price for their death dealing inventions. 
Military men boast that we have the most deadly guns made, 
among them one that will shoot twenty times in two and a half 
seconds. Are men in the useful pursuits of peace, who make 
something to eat and wear, as distinguished as those who con¬ 
trive something to kill and destroy their fellows? 

In the last cyclopedia which 1 have been fortunate enough 
to own I find that Admiral Mayo is given liberal space, while I 
look in vain for anything about the Mayo Brothers who have 
built one of the largest hospitals in the world and have given 
it to the medical profession, and who are known throughout the 
length and breadth of the land for their efforts in behalf of suf¬ 
fering humanity. I find reference to hundreds of military men 
of small caliber who are never heard of outside the army and 
navy, but look in vain in any cyclopedia for the name of Thomas 
Bannister Gibson who was chief justice of Pennsylvania for 
twenty-five years and whose opinions are still quoted by attor¬ 
neys all over the country. 

Henry Ford is no doubt the largest individual employer of 
labor in the world, having perhaps 60,000 persons in his em¬ 
ploy. A magazine recently said that while Ford is perhaps the 
richest man in the world, his popularity arises from the fact 
that he gives one hundred cents in value for every dollar re¬ 
ceived, but how does he, a man who has always created some¬ 
thing useful, fare in comparison with those whose business has 
been to destroy? Bonaparte, who never did anything but break 
down instead of build up, a man of war, occupies fifteen times 
as much space in the latest cyclopedia I have as Henry Ford, 
and he is but one of hundreds. When Napoleon was charged 
with being a human butcher he brushed aside the charge by 
saying, “I killed but a million and they were mostly Dutchmen.’’ 


152 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


More is said to have been written about him than any other 
man, living or dead, and it is mostly favorable, making him a 
hero instead of what he really was. 

This peace commission soon learned that w r ar is one of 
the things firmly established in Christendom. There is money 
behind its every movement. No government is so poor that it 
cannot rake up the money by hook or crook to provide some sort 
of an army and navy. It is true that some of the smaller na¬ 
tions have but a handful of soldiers and only a vessel or two 
for a navy, but they are doing the best they can to follow the 
example set by the larger nations, and seem to feel safe if they 
have an army and navy, no matter how small. Let war be de¬ 
clared and these small fellows will bristle up to one of the great 
powers as a game-cock to an American eagle, thinking that 
some strong nation may join in the butchery and help to down 
a mutually disliked foe. 

That Henry Ford may not have known until tried that 
his humanitarian expedition would not prove successful is evi¬ 
dent from what he has said, though that is very little. As far 
as I know he has said nothing about it directly and perhaps the 
nearest he has approached the subject is when he says: 

“In 1914 when those who saw the stupidity of war in this 
age went into the arena and tried to stop it, they found that 
there were no tools to work with. The world had been sys¬ 
tematically organized for war: there were no instruments, no 
weapons prepared for peace offensive. Just as truly as there can 
be no war wdthout preparation, so there can be no peace without 
preparation. 

“If any constructive program of humanity could com¬ 
mand a tenth, a hundredth part of the human values that war 
can command, this world could be completely transformed in 
little time.” 

It was said on the floor of Congress just before the last war 
commenced, what was known to a few before, that a navy trust 


GOVERNMENT PAYS FOR WAR PROPAGANDA 


153 


exists in this and every strong country on the globe, making 
money out of war and the preparation for war. The member, 
who talked very plainly, evidently knew what he was talking 
about, for he gave names and figures for what he said. No at¬ 
tempt was ever made, as far as I know, to deny what he said. 
The only defense to his specific charges was that one member, 
who was perhaps guilty, said the charges w r ere made by a country 
member, as if this was all that needed to be said. Hon. C. H. 
Tavenner, of Illinois, said in a speech: 

“Behind the war trust is the most powerful group of men 
in the United States, if not in the world. Its control is in the 
hands of the same group of money kings that rule the insurance 
companies, the great banks, the express companies, telegraph 
companies, railroad and steamship lines. To realize the power 
of the capitalists behind the steel, armor, and munition plants 
and shipbuilding companies and recall the desperate ends to 
which more than one investigation has revealed they will go to 
satisfy their greed for gold, and then to contemplate that the 
United States means more in war to this group than the United 
States in/peace is enough to justify the most optimistic man in 
trembling for the safety of this patriotic people.” 

This same member named the head of the navy trust and 
many of its members. He showed that the Midvale Company, 
the Carnegie Company and the Bethlehem Company, all the 
plants that make armor plate in this country, had representatives 
in the navy trust. Members of the league haunted the halls of 
Congress and through the influence of those personally inter¬ 
ested hundreds of millions of dollars were appropriated. While 
it is true that the Navy League made money hand over fist 
during the late war, it may be admitted that it was comparatively 
quiet for a time after, fully expecting so sensible a thing as the 
League of Nations to be adopted by the United States. Of course 
every prominent organization must have an organ to advocate 
its doctrines and the Navy League is no exception. In the first 
number of the Navy League, July, 1903, we find the following: 


154 


the league of nations 


“Today Germany, thanks to an enlightened statesmanship 
and the support of the public, but most of all on account of the 
German Navy League whose astonishing results we shall try to 
emulate in this country, may be regarded as the fourth sea power 
in the world.” 

We have, emulated Germany so well that we have evidently 
taken her place by refusing to join with the League of Nations 
for peace but flock by ourselves, and for the first time in over 
one hundred and thirty years think of what Washington said, 
and quote it as a reason for our selfishness in refusing to join 
with other nations to settle our difficulties without war. Strange 
to say that some who quote Washington think we should take 
part with other nations in war but not in peace. 

A few years ago Germany was stirred to the center by de¬ 
velopments showing that some of her prominent men were in¬ 
terested in the Navy League and plotting to encourage war for 
the money they might make out of the blood and property of 
others. The scandal even reached the Kaiser. The same is true 
of England and perhaps of every country in which navy leagues 
were active, though the facts did not become known in every 
case. , In 1909 the stockholder lists of several British concerns 
that make munitions of war w T ere examined, and in the Arm¬ 
strong, Whitworth Company were found the names of sixty 
noblemen, fifteen baronets, twenty knights, eight members of par¬ 
liament, twenty military officers and eight journalists, a com¬ 
bination that could scare almost any people into preparation 
for war, ostensibly for self defense, but really that some might 
fatten on the blood money secured by false pretenses. 

Several of the London papers of May 10, 1912, contained 
an article furnished by the International News Service from 
which I make the following extracts: 

“Nations are paying a fearful price for the cult of inter¬ 
national hatred. There are in England not only a political party 


GOVERNMENT PAYS FOR WAR PROPAGANDA 


155 


always clamoring for greater naval and military expenditures, 
but also a press whose specialty is creating war scares. While 
not even the worst enemy of the Tory party in England would 
dream of accusing it of being in league with the great gun and 
armor factories here and abroad, there are right here in London 
papers that may not be above suspicion of being subsidized by 
Krupp and the armor trust.’’ 

“One has only to turn over the pages of a big financial 
paper to discover that nearly all the great armament firms of 
England, as well as those of Germany and France, are acting 
with entire indifference to patriotism of any kind. They are 
all alike engaged in the operation of arming all nations, with 
absolute indifference against one another. As the nations perish 
and wither, so do the dividends of these armament firms rise. 
As a mosquito’s body swells in size while it fills itself with your 
blood, so do the shares of these gun and armament factories 
swell when there is a prospect that human blood will be shed.’' 

This article might very truthfully have included the United 
States with England, France and Germany, for some of our 
patriots who believe in war had stock in the armor trust. 

Most of us would scorn to make and sell intoxicating drink 
for a livelihood, because we have conscientious scruples against 
it. We feel that our product would prove a curse to some of 
our fellow beings, but what sort of a disposition must animate 
the man who is willing to manufacture and sell implements that 
are intended only to destroy life and property? 

When H. A. Harvey discovered how to harden steel and 
make it fit for armor plate there was a rush among those who 
did their full share toward making the people believe they were 
in danger unless they kept their navy a little stronger than that 
of any other country. The Harvey Company had headquarters 
in London, but stockholders in all parts of the world. The 
Bethlehem Company, Ltd., of Pennsylvania held 4,301 shares; 
The French had four directors and 4,000 shares of stock in 
addition to the 3,682 shares held by Schneider & Company; 


156 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


Italy held 8,000 shares and was represented by Raffal Battini; 
Germany was interested in everything that would kill, and 
Krupp held 4,731 shares of stoek while other Germans owned 
2,750 shares. Austria was taken under the wing of Germany, 
while Belgium was looked after by Russia. It made no differ¬ 
ence what nation built a war vessel, all who owned stock in the 
Harvey Company profited by it. 

When a war vessel was built, the other nations were ex¬ 
pected to build a larger and more expensive one. So enthusiastic 
did some patriots become for their respective governments, want¬ 
ing them to build more vessels, that they deliberately falsified 
as to the number that other governments were building. For a 
time building dreadnaughts and making implements of war were 
among the main industries of Europe and United States. It 
was quietly reported to some of the nations that Germany had 
or would have seventeen dreadnaughts by March, 1912. A 
British statesman, perhaps both scared and interested, reported 
that Germany would have twenty-five or least twenty-one dread¬ 
naughts by March, 1912. The British naval register showed that 
Germany had nine dreadnaughts in 1912 and would have but 
fourteen in March, 1914. 

Of course Congress never makes a war appropriation with¬ 
out calling in generals and admirals. Their advice is sought 
with as much confidence now as was that of the soothsayers in 
olden times. Sometimes the information obtained is not what 
is wanted. Following is a dialogue between Hon. Finley C. Gray 
of Indiana and Admiral Vreeland: 

“Mr. Gray: ‘I wish to inquire of Admiral Vreeland whether 
it is not the policy of other governments to increase their navies 
with all of the other leading powers ? ’ 

“Admiral Vreeland: ‘It is, sir.’ 

“Mr. Gray: ‘What would be the advantage to us or to any 
other power, if the navies were increased equally by all the na- 


GOVERNMENT PAYS FOR WAR PROPAGANDA 


157 


tions of the world? Would there be any gain to us or to any 
other power ? ’ 

“Admiral Vreeland: ‘Not if all would gain in the same 
* ratio. ’ 

“Mr. Gray: ‘Would not the same grounds exist after an 
increase for a further increase ?’ 

“Admiral Vreeland: ‘It would seem so.’ 

“Mr. Gray: ‘There would be no advantage gained by any 
nation then? How long would that increase be maintained and 
what advantage would it be to any nation?’ 

“Admiral Vregland: ‘If it continues to increase, the poor 
nation will in time exhaust itself, and then the other nations 
the United States included, will have a free—I mean be free 
to build in accordance with the changed conditions.’ 

“Mr. Gray: ‘Then it is only the limit of taxation?’ 

“Admiral Vreeland: ‘Yes, sir.’ ” 

The foregoing dialogue needs no comment, for it speaks for 
itself. In a court of justice the poor are supposed to have the 
same rights as the rich, for justice is no respecter of persons, 
but, according to Admiral Vreeland—and he represents the navy 
side of the case fairly—poor nations must stand aside because 
they cannot afford to meet the demands of the admirals and 
generals. After reading several such explanations as that given 
by Admiral Vreeland one is reminded of the remark of H. G. 
Wells in his “Outlines of History” when he says: “The pro¬ 
fessional military mind is by necessity an inferior and un¬ 
imaginative mind; no man of high intellectual quality would 
willingly imprison his gifts in such a calling.” 

It is admitted that a war court is simply one of force and 
not Justice, and that its cost in money, to say nothing of its toll 
of life and limb, is too expensive to be borne. It is said that it 
took three hundred and ninety shells to kill a man and half as 
manv to wound one in the late war. The Germans destroyed 
600,000 houses, 25,000 miles of highway, 75,000,000 acres of land, 
and 3,000 miles of railway. Our debt was about a billion dollars,. 


158 THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 

caused by war, when the last fight began, and in spite of Wash¬ 
ington’s advice, was twenty-five billions when the war closed. 
Foreign nations had their debts increased in like ratio. It is 
hardly necessary to say that most of the debt is in bonds held 
mostly by the rich. It is said by those who are supposed to know 
that in five years after the bonds are issued ninety per cent of 
them will be held by two per cent of the people. 

One fatal objection to the decisions of war is that they last 
only until the nation that accedes to the terms imposed by brute 
force, feels strong enough to try for a reversal of judgment. 
The war began between France and Germany in July, 18/0, 
about a matter so trifling that both sides were ashamed to tell 
the truth about it. The next February France sent a delega¬ 
tion to ask Germany what she would take to quit fighting. The 
answer came promptly that France could stop hostilities by 
paying one thousand million dollars and ceding Alsace-Lorraine 
to the victors. The verdict was no doubt outrageously high, but 
there were plenty of pacifists in France in 1871 who were willing 
to accept peace at almost any price. The inhabitants of Alsace- 
Lorraine would greatly have preferred to remain with France, 
but they had nothing to say about it. In war might makes the 
verdict, and as France appealed to the court of war, she must 
abide by its decision, harsh and unjust though it may have been. 

Would France not better have settled the minor dispute be¬ 
fore than after the war, and is this not always the case ? Does 
the war verdict of Germany fifty years ago not still rankle in 
the French mind? Does not the memory of that encounter 
embitter France today, and was it not the thought of the result 
in 1870 that took her into the Ruhr Valley in 1923, and makes 
her insist on the pound of flesh? 

The vices and crimes of peace become the virtues of war. 
When a German kills an Englishman or an American in civil 
life, he is not considered fit to be at large, if indeed he is 


GOVERNMENT PAYS FOR WAR PROPAGANDA 159 

worthy of life iself; but in war, if he kills a dozen or two Ameri¬ 
cans and makes a host of widows and orphans, he is regarded 
as a hero and entitled to an iron cross. 

No other word in language suggests murder, arson, theft, 
outrage and crime of all kinds as does the word war. It is far 
more suggestive of evil than the word hell, for hell is more or 
less fanciful and figurative, but war is a horrible reality for 
which there can no longer be any excuse in morals, religion, 
sociology or economics. It is not strange that Henry Ford or 
any sensible man should be a man of peace or even a pacifist. 

I am. aware that the Navy Trust is probably dead. No 
more war vessels are likely to be built, taking the opinions of 
military men who say that an airplane can sink a.dreadnaught 
in a few minutes. I think it important, however, to see what 
the greed of man has done and will do again in some form, if 
we give it a chance. The race is to see which nation can excel 
in the air fighting power. Some papers are already boasting 
that we are the first power on the sea and third in the air. They 
pretend to think that we will be first in the air as soon as Con¬ 
gress appropriates the money. 

Human nature changes but little from age to age, and if 
we listen to the advice and warnings of military men, they will 
soon become as domineering and as self-important as in the days 
of the navy and gunpowder trusts. The airplane trust does 
not interfere seriously with the powder trust, as powder will 
be used with the new method of warfare. By the mistakes of 
the past we should gain wisdom for the future. A Southern 
orator about the close of the Civil War thus eloquently puts 
the case in question: 

“Human passion knows no retiring spot hut flows right on 
from the Pontic to the pro-Pontic and the Hellespont of the 
human bosom. Sauls still hurl javelins at Davids ; Davids have 
Uriahs put in the front of the fight; Hamans plot against Mor- 


160 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


decais; Delilahs clip the locks of Samsons; and swindling is 
going on in the world today precisely as it was when Isaac was 
giving his blessing to one son when he thought he was giving 
it to another. Avarice and envy, vengeance, lechery and treach¬ 
ery are today men’s masters as they were then. Any change 
that may have taken place depends more on education than on 
any change in human nature itself.’ 1 

While the eloquent speaker, Mr. Dawson, of Georgia, defined 
human nature more or less correctly, should we not be gaining, 
taking the idea that human nature changes only as education 
enlightens the mind and enables it to take a higher and better 
view of life and all that pertains to it. Punishments have soft¬ 
ened greatly even since the time of Elizabeth Fry, though there 
is still room for great improvement. Many of us have come to 
regard the criminal as a human being born wrong or taught 
wrong, for which he may not be responsible, rather than a de¬ 
liberate law-breaker who has no rights except to suffer for his 
misdoings. It is not necessary that we get all our education 
from books. Experience is said to teach a dear school, and we 
ought to know from experience as well as the good sense that 
comes from general education that there is a better way of set¬ 
tling international disputes than by brute force, giving the vic¬ 
tory not to justice but to might. The overwhelming opinion of 
the people of the world is in favor of settling all differences by 
reason. Will they insist on what they know is right or will they 
allow a few militarists to dictate? Mrs. Upton, vice chairman 
of the Republican National Committee, says that nine women of 
ten are for peace. Will they vote as they talk or will they vote 
for their party even if it says the way to peace is to prepare 
for war? 


CHAPTER IX. 


“A rational nature admits of nothing that is not 
serviceable to the rest of mankind.” —Antoninus. 

Patriotism Versus Humanity. 

It matters little whether the reason given in the President’s 
message for organizing the military forces of the country be 
patriotism, the study of history or something else, as long as 
the war department is behind it. But one conclusion can be 
drawn and that is that organizing the military forces of the 
country, and appropriating more for military purposes than in 
time of peace, more than any other country, must mean war 
instead of peace. Those throughout the world who are for peace 
know that it is what we do rather than what we say that shows 
us in our true light. 

At a recent meeting in London the question came up as to 
the military strength of the different powers now and when the 
World War was commenced. It was found that the armed land 
forces of England were 80,919 as against 106,414; France 450,- 
859 against 666,743; Germany 100,000 against 836,000; Russia 
1,300,000 against 1,300,000 and the United States 137,000 against 
86,600. Lieutenant Colonel Hall then asked, “Are we to under¬ 
stand that the only important power which has actually in¬ 
creased its force is the United States?” Mr. Guinnes replied: 
‘ ‘ That is the case. ’ ’ Is this not a record of which a great nation 
that claims to be for peace should be ashamed? 

Patriotism, like charity, is made to cover a multitude of 
sins. The man who has an abundance of patriotism, especially 


162 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


of the kind that is ready to fight, needs but little else in the 
opinion of a great many, and yet it means very little when we 
find what it really stands for. No feeling stands for less and 
passes for so much as patriotism. The same feelings and mo¬ 
tives that were patriotism in Washington and Bolivar were 
treason in Emmett and Kosciusko. The difference between suc¬ 
cess and failure is frequently all there is between a patriot and 
a traitor, something that may be beyond the control of either. 
Patriotism is defined on all hands as love of country. The veriest 
jingo will not object to this definition, but a man who does not 
think enough of his wife and children to furnish them with 
the necessaries of life, who does not think enough of himself to 
keep out of the ditch, may love his country so dearly that he 
would willingly give his worthless life for it. If it be asked what 
is home without a country? a more pertinent inquiry is, what is a 
•country without homes ? A country of happy homes is one whose 
people have most reason to be patriotic. 

When Governor Grosbeck of Michigan issued his proclama¬ 
tion designating Flag Day, he said something all of us need to 
think about and take to heart. He said: 

“The flag is the visible token of those great principles upon 
which the Republic was founded; and unless we are ready to 
uphold those principles at any cost, this Republic, with its free 
institutions, cannot long endure.” 

A newspaper that advocates a big army and navy, in com¬ 
menting on this message, says: 

1 * This is entirely true. While it is right for us to show 
respect for the bunting we call the Stars and Stripes, while the 
usages and forms that have grown up with regard to it are fine, 
and ought to be observed, the ceremonies have real meaning 
xmly in case they are representative of something much more 
practical and deeper. 

“We are not honoring the flag when we stand at salute in 


PATRIOTISM VERSUS HUMANITY 


163 


its presence and then turn away and do violence to the best 
thing’s for which the flag stands. We are not honoring the flag 
when we sing a song about the ‘Red, White and Blue’ one 
minute and the next minute deliberately break the laws of the 
•country over which it waves. On the contrary we are guilty 
of contemptible hypocrisy .’ 1 

Even men who don’t think enough of their families or them¬ 
selves or society to be decent, and become criminals, may be in¬ 
tensely patriotic and receive the plaudits of the multitude for 
-their patriotism. Only a few months ago the inmates of a prison 
at Des Moines, Iowa, beat a man who was put into jail because 
he refused to take off his hat in presence of a United States flag 
when carried in a Grand Army parade. The editor of an East¬ 
ern newspaper gave no reason for the man’s not removing his 
hat but he praised the jail birds for their love of country. The 
truth is, perhaps, they did not love their families, themselves, or 
anything else. They evidently did not have the right kind of 
regard for their country or they would not have violated its 
laws. Does any one think more of his country because of its 
wars? Does the German or the Frenchman or the Englishman 
think more of his native land because it lost many of its best 
citizens in the late war and is threatened with a debt that it will 
never be able to pay? 

Let us take a brief inventory of the late war which was the 
greatest ever known, the most expensive in money, life and 
morals. As humanity is always for gain, but never in favor of 
loss, it is but proper that we ask for a balance sheet of the prin¬ 
cipals engaged in the last great struggle. 

How about Germany, the nation that began the war and 
seemed not only willing and ready but anxious to fight? The 
nation whose historians praised war as something to be wel¬ 
comed rather than dreaded, the nation whose preparedness for 
•war was used for years as an excuse by other military nations 


164 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


for large appropriations for the army and navy ? Germany lost 
the lives of over 2,000,000 of her citizens, eighty-five per cent of 
her territory, and had her national debt increased 7,000 per 
cent. Her colleges and universities were once filled with stu¬ 
dents from all over the world; now none so poor as to do her 
reverence. For Germany it was an enormous loss with no gain. 
She should have acted on her own proverb, “Every war leaves 
three armies: an army of cripples, an army of mourners and an 
army of thieves. * ’ 

France lost 1,654,000 of her citizens, the destruction of 
500,000 houses, 25,000 miles of highway, 3,000 miles of railway, 
and her national debt increased 800 per cent. Besides, she suf¬ 
fered the temporary loss of 74,000 acres of farm land. She 
gained some colonial territory and a reparation bill which she is 
trying to collect in a most expensive manner. She also was 
awarded Alsace-Lorraine which she lost in war fifty years ago. 

England lost 939,000 lives, stability of economic relations, 
her position as leading financial agent of the world and an in¬ 
crease of her public debt, already large, of over 700 per cent. 
■She recently agreed to pay what she owed to the United States 
in sixty years. Like France, England got some colonial posses¬ 
sions, but it is an open question whether such possessions are not 
a liability rather than an asset. 

The United States lost 109,740 lives, lost credit among other 
nations by refusing to join them in a peace compact after making 
it, had our national debt increased 2,300 per cent, half of which 
is owed us by foreign nations, but which some of them will never 
pay either because they cannot or will not. 

Beside the losses named, every country engaged in the con¬ 
flict has an army of cripples and will have a roll of the disabled 
as long as the present generation lasts. Every nation engaged 
in the combat has suffered morally to an extent not to be com¬ 
puted in dollars and cents. It is thought by intelligent observers 


PATRIOTISM VERSUS HUMANITY 


165 


that some of the weaker nations will never be able to recover, 
but will drift into decay. If every nation engaged in war loses, 
and there is no room for dispute on this point, is not any one 
who advocates war or preparation for it an enemy of his race ? 

Isn’t it time that we should give patriotism a rest and act 
on a feeling as much higher and better as light is above dark* 
ness? It needs no argument to prove that humanity is a much 
better and broader feeling than patriotism. The man who has 
humanity in his heart can be depended on to think enough of 
his country to obey its laws, to lead an upright life and be a 
good citizen. If he is animated by humanity he will not cut his 
neighbor’s throat through fear that the neighbor is watching to 
perform a like service for him. The man who has a proper re¬ 
gard for humanity will not think more nor less of a man because 
he happens to live on the other side of an imaginary line, but 
will take him at his real value. War concerns itself only with 
patriotism while the churches deal with humanity. Is it not 
high time that the churches put themselves above the military? 

There will be no denial of the great ability and industry of 
H. G. Wells. He was brought up under the English military 
system, but like other sensible men, has nothing good to say 
of war. He says: 

“There will be no peace in the world, no understanding, no 
trust between peoples, while children hate every country but 
their own. I want to see the teaching of history broadened so 
that real brotherhood will be better understood. There can be 
no enduring prosperity that does not include all mankind. 

“War is a horrible thing, and constantly more horrible and 
dreadful, so that unless it is ended it will certainly end human 
society: social injustice, and the sight of the limited and cramped 
human beings it produces, torment the soul; but the strongest 
incentive to constructive political and social work for an im¬ 
aginative spirit lies not so much in the mere hope of escaping 


166 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


evils as in the opportunity for great adventures that their sup¬ 
pression will open to our race. 

“We want to get rid of the militarist not simply because 
he hurts and kills hut because he is an intolerable thick-voiced 
blockhead who stands hectoring and blustering in our way to 
achievement. ’ ’ 

It is discouraging to talk peace when the world wants war, 
and the world as a whole was never so sick of war, so disgusted 
with it, as at the close of the last one. The world is waiting for 
peace, and apathy on the part of those who desire it, passing 
resolutions instead of doing something, is the only thing that 
w T ill defeat it, for there is no doubt as to the great sentiment of 
the civilized world. Turkey, one of the Central powers, is about 
to ask for membership in the League of Nations, making 
more than fifty nations that have expressed themselves as willing 
to settle in a court of justice rather than by the expensive, bloody 
and uncertain court of war. Turkey has been the cause of 
trouble in the Far East for centuries and will be a valuable acces¬ 
sion to the League. The w r orst thing about the Turk is his re¬ 
ligion, which ought to be improved, but we cannot make it any 
better by force or make our own consistent as the religion of 
the Prince of Peace until we get rid of armies and navies. We 
are yet in the position described by the man when asked if 
Christianity had been a success in his city. “Well,” he said, 
“we cannot tell yet for it has never been tried.” 

I do not pretend to say that we have never been forced into 
war. I feel that this country was forced to take part in the 
World War, hard as it was on us both financially and morally. 
It was too late to ask any questions. We were confronted by a 
condition and not a theory. We are said to be responsible for 
what we might have prevented. Taking this view of the case, 
is it not possible that we must share in the responsibility for the 
late war? Some nation ought to take the lead in the peace move- 


PATRIOTISM VERSUS HUMANITY 


167 


ment, just as some one must take the lead in all reforms. While 
all, except a few German writers who did more writing than 
fighting, admit that peace is desirable, yet there was not a 
nation in all the world to which we could point and say, “See 
what a nation can do with its war expenses turned to construc¬ 
tive purposes rather than those of destruction. Is any nation 
even approximately so well prepared to take the lead in this 
movement as we are ? Taking everything into consideration we 
are the strongest nation. We are isolated so that we need fear 
no foreign foe unless our fears are stronger than our judgment. 
It was expecting infinitely more of a foreign nation to take the 
lead in such a movement than it was to do it ourselves. They 
spoke different languages and had nothing but an imaginary 
line between them, and it was much easier to keep them in fear 
of their neighbors than it would have been had it been three 
thousand miles to the nearest nation of any power. 

As Premier Briand of Prance well said at the Washington 
conference, “Here in this country you are living among states 
which do not knew the entangled barriers and frontiers of 
Europe. You live in an immensity of space. You do not know 
of any factions in your own land. You have nothing to fear. So 
it is rather difficult for some of you to realize what are the con¬ 
ditions at present prevailing in Europe, after w*ar and after 
victory.’ ’ 

Isn’t it highly probable that if we had commenced several 
years ago to set a worthy example of right living that other na¬ 
tions would by this time have seen the better way and followed 
it? Has not every civilized nation shown more of a disposition 
to listen to kindness than harshness? Has one ever refused to 
listen to overtures, unless the rulers felt the proffered kindness 
was only a diplomatic excuse to gain time for war? As a rule 
every man wants the v r orth of his money. If it goes for the 
expenses of government, he wants the best possible use made of 


168 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


it. Had the expenses for war been devoted to the pursuits of 
peace, this nation would have been made to blossom as the rose, 
hut what have we to show for our millions? In this year of 
our Lord 1923, a time of peace, when over fifty nations have 
signed a treaty to get along without war; when five leading 
nations have agreed to scrap some of their war ships and build 
no more for ten years, yet the naval committee, without a 
grimace, recommends three hundred and twenty-five millions for 
for the navy and a little afterward another committee recom¬ 
mends a little more for the army than is allowed the navy. Nearly 
eight hundred millions in a time of perfect peace, with nobody 
able or wanting to fight, with the country hard up in every 
respect, is more than the people will stand when their attention 
is properly focussed on the case. We are sadly in need of good 
roads. Is there any one who will pretend to say that we would 
not better have 20,000 miles of good roads than the military 
preparation for 1923 or 1924? 

What we have appropriated for the navy alone in the ten 
years past staggers the imagination. Spent in building up in¬ 
stead of tearing down, in the legitimate and peaceful pursuits, 
it would have made our country prosperous beyond measure, far 
beyond any other country on earth. The amount appropriated 
in the last ten years for the navy would build a string of fifty 
good roads from the Atlantic to the Pacific at forty thousand 
dollars per mile and leave over a billion in the treasury to drain 
swamps and othewise give employment to the needy. What have 
we to show for all this expenditure which is too vast for the 
most vivid imagination to comprehend? Both admirals and 
generals lament in their articles that we are defenseless and have 
neither adequate army nor navy. 

Is it any wonder that farmers are complaining of hard 
times and have gone to Congress for aid? Is it surprising that 
the Pennsylvania legislature has held meetings trying to find 


PATRIOTISM VERSUS HUMANITY 


169 


something to tax in order to meet the requirement of the treas¬ 
ury for the next two years ? Only a few months ago doubts were 
expressed as to whether the Keystone State would issue bonds 
to build a few miles of roads badly needed. No one should 
express surprise that General Pershing finds pacifists increasing 
in number so rapidly as to cause him to speak of it in public. 
Pacifists know that most of our revenue goes for war directly or 
indirectly. 

Do the people of the United States think that the brightest 
and best men of other countries are so stupid that they do not 
know enough to follow a good example when in plain sight be¬ 
fore them; that they deliberately choose the more cruel and ex¬ 
pensive way when they see some other nation using a cheaper, 
more humane and in every respect a better way ? In other words, 
is any nation so dense that its rulers deliberately work against 
their own best interests and the welfare of their people? When 
we recently built a new dreadnaught, something to kill and de¬ 
stroy, and set a bad example, did not other nations borrow the 
money and go deeper in debt to build a larger destroying ma¬ 
chine, even if some of her people had to migrate to keep from 
starving? Do we not even now have those in authority recom¬ 
mending money to build airplanes to fight, because others are 
setting the example? Dare we not trust human nature to fol¬ 
low a sensible example, especially more sensible than to listen to 
the fears of jingoes who have ruled the world for centuries. 

England owes us $4,000,000,000 which she proposes to pay 
in sixty years. 'She had a big national debt besides which she 
either could not or did not pay, but she did her best to keep in 
the naval race. Thought bankrupt, she managed-to borrow the 
money and arranged to build four of the largest dreadnaughts 
afloat. She suddenly stopped when she with the other members 
of the “big five” learned from the admirals of several nations 
that it would simply be fool-hardy to build a battleship costing 


170 


THE LEAGUE OP NATIONS 



forty million dollars to be sent to the bottom in a few minutes- 
by an insignificant airship costing a few thousands. The “big 
five” concluded to build no more battleships and do their fight¬ 
ing in the air. No doubt the reason why nations followed a bad 
example is that they have had no other kind to follow. Even the 
so-called Christian nations seemed to present an example of being 
ready to kill and destroy. 

I like to reinforce my opinion with that of others, especially 
of those who are well-prepared to speak. I quote from a book 
recently published by the Macmillan Company of New York. 
It bears the title, “The Reconstruction of Religion,” and is 
written by Charles A. Elwood, Ph. D., Professor of Sociology 
in the University of Missouri. It is the opinion of one who has 
studied the subject with a view of stating the truth as he finds it: 

“Perhaps the deadliest foe of all which democracy has is 
militarism, the use of armed force by one group to conquer 
another group. This is the absolute negation of that social good 
will which is one of its necessary foundations. It is common¬ 
place with students of social history that war, throughout all 
the ages, has been one of the greatest enemies of democracy. 
All of the aristocracies of the world, so far as anthropology and 
sociology can discover, have arisen in one way or another 
through war. The reason is not difficult to discover. Democracy, 
in order to succeed, requires a democratic setting; but militar¬ 
ism tends toward the rule of force and toward the organization 
of society on the basis of good will and like-mindedness. Even 
defensive wars have more than once resulted in the subversion 
of democracy, both in government and society at large. Hence 
democracy stands but little chance of success in a militarist 
world organized upon the basis of armed force. National au¬ 
tonomy is threatened so long as there is not established inter¬ 
national equality and good will. As long as nations have to arm 
themselves to the teeth to protect themselves from aggression 
by other nations, no nation can give proper attention to its do¬ 
mestic questions, the military will eat up its public resources, 
equality of opportunity cannot be maintained, and democracy 


PATRIOTISM VERSUS HUMANITY 


171 


cannot be realized. The equal rights of nations, not less than 
that of individuals, must be assured if democracy is to win.” 

“No scientific social thinker doubts that the cessation of 
strife and the coming of durable peace is the great immediate 
need of our world; for peace is an indispensable condition for 
all the constructive work of civilization. It is not simply inter¬ 
national peace which is needed, but rather a general social 
peace; for at bottom all war is but a symptom of an egoistic, 
predatory spirit of civilization in general. Now, a religion of 
the love and service of all men would lay a foundation for last¬ 
ing social peace because, first of all, it would repudiate force and 
selfishness as bases for human relations and with them the whole 
pagan philosophy that might is right or can make right; that 
human beings can profit by living at the expense of other human 
beings, that to dominate is the end of existence.” 

“Men are imitative creatures. They are prone to treat 
others as they are treated by others. But they are also intelli¬ 
gent creatures, and they usually select as patterns for imitation 
conduct which experience shows to work best with themselves 
and others. Hence, while strife breeds strife, and hate breeds 
hate, kindliness also breeds kindliness, and love, love: but the 
superior satisfaction in the latter case are evident even to the 
dullest mind. There can be no question that kindliness and love 
would win if this were a fully intelligent world. To wait until 
all accept the principle of love as the guide of their conduct 
would be to postpone indefinitely progress toward a world of 
universal good will.’' 

Professor Elwood in saying that like begets like is only 
stating what is known as the truth to every honest student of 
human nature. Ralph Parlette, Who has lectured many times 
before Chautauquas and other intelligent audiences, says in his 
book, which has run into many editions, that human beings are 
like sheep. The shepherd can lead them to heaven—or hell. The 
trouble is that our shepherds or leaders want to be peace men 
and jingoes at the same time. They talk for peace, but when it 
comes to the test, appropriating money, they act the jingo and 


172 


THE LEAGUE OF NATION’S 


allow a staggering sum for the purposes of war every year. 
What is said by Professor Elwood and others who have studied 
human nature with the purpose of learning the truth, is general, 
and not of the people of United States alone, as if they were 
made of more peaceable material than the remainder of the 
world. The claim is made that we can be ruled by kindness, but 
we spend more on war preparations than other nations to pro¬ 
tect ourselves from imaginary foes. If a man wants to be a 
leader in the world’s battle for peace, he must show himself a 
true friend of the cause every day of the year, week days as 
well as Sundays. 

Men who are trained for years in schools that teach to kill 
and destroy; who think of nothing else; who expect to make 
destruction of life and property their life work; who derive their 
sustenance from the childish fears of others, may be excusable ; 
but those who pretend to believe the principles of the Christian 
religion and appropriate millions of other people’s money every 
year for the purpose of destruction, have no excuse, unless they 
admit that they regard religion as a cloak that may be put off 
or on at pleasure. They seem to think that we are the only 
people on earth worthy of trust and that all others are watch¬ 
ing for a chance to swoop down on the United States and 
capture it. 

Those who think that we are the only nation that has sense 
enough to get along without w^r seem to forget that a nation is 
only a collection of individuals, and that what is true of the 
individual is true, as a rule, of the aggregation. The leaders 
or rulers should lead a right public sentiment. Do we know 
any one who is more kindly disposed toward us because we are 
suspicious of his every act? We see the two classes exemplified 
in the sober-minded Quaker who goes about his business un¬ 
suspicious of wrong, without a pistol or dirk-knife to defend 


PATRIOTISM VERSUS HUMANITY 


173 


himself. On the other hand is the bully wtho is looking for a 
scrap. He has in a convenient pocket a revolver to defend him¬ 
self in case of attack. As a rule he doesn ? t have to wait long for 
an insult, real or imaginary, to his dignity. Both find what 
they are expecting. 

Those who go into a new country, assuming that they have 
a better right to it than the natives, usually go with a display of 
strength. By this display they stimulate the natives to a more 
determined resistance. They have reason to think that one or 
the other must go and they sell themselves as dearly as possible. 
This country has but a single exception, and this one goes far to 
show that kindness and justice do more than force even with 
so-called savage races. 

The Quakers settled among the Indians who could have 
killed them without risk because they knew the Quakers had no 
use for firearms, but put their dependence in the Golden Rule. 
The historian says that for seventy years under William Penn 
Pennsylvania did not have the loss of man, woman or child by 
the Indians, whole those of other colonies were in constant dan¬ 
ger. When the Quakers were outvoted in the legislature and 
Pennsylvania began to depend on force, trouble began with the 
Indians. If those who believe in guns know any better reason 
for the safety of Quakers than the fact that like begets like, they 
have never made it known. Are we dealing with people who 
are less susceptible to kindness than the North American Indians? 


CHAPTER X. 


What the World Thinks of the League. 

“In a multitude of councellors there is safety." 

—Proverbs, XXIV: 6. 

This chapter is devoted mainly to giving the opinions of 
prominent men and women on the League of Nations. They are 
not views that may be picked up at random, but the opinions of 
those who have influence in their respective localities and many 
who are known throughout the civilized world. If practicable, 
volumes might be devoted to the views of noted men and women 
who are using their influence for the League of Nations, which 
they consider the subject of greatest importance to every coun¬ 
try on earth. 

There is perhaps no more able nor conscientious advocate 
of the League of Nations than Lord Robert Cecil of London, 
who was in this country to explain the League, not from the 
English standpoint alone, but from that of the world generally. 
To Lord Cecil belongs much of the credit for preparing the cove¬ 
nant that promises to abolish war. He is no recent convert, but 
had some such plan in mind for years before the League came 
into existence. Lord Cecil has no propaganda and asks no one 
to join the League. All he asks is the opportunity to explain 
its principles, assuming that all any man needs to become a 
friend of the League of Nations is to understand what it means. 
I give but a few brief extracts from his first lecture: 

“Fear and suspicion, twin demons which have possessed the 
world, and which can be exorcised only by some form of an asso¬ 
ciation of nations, are the forces that stand between France and 


WHAT THE WORLD THINKS OF THE LEAGUE 175 

Germany in the settlement of the reparations question as they 
stand in the way of settlement of every international question. 

“We have to get a new spirit among the nations of the world. 
We have to turn their minds from force as the only remedy. 
We have to teach them .that persuasion and public opinion are 
of far greater potency than mere physical compulsion. 

The next war, if one comes, will be far more terrible than 
the World War, and it is not inconceivable that American cities 
may be laid waste and their population destroyed by airmen 
flying from over the sea. A crisis in world history has been 
reached—nations must learn or perish. 

“It is true the Washington conference has laid down certain 
rules for submarine use, but there is little likelihood that these 
would be respected if nations ever again find themselves fighting 
for their existence. 

“'Certainly the experiences of the last war is against any 
such hope. Scarcely one rule for the humanizing of warfare was 
observed, and though we may think our enemies were the worst, 
yet in all candor and frankness, I doubt if there was any single 
nation which has a clean sheet in the matter. 

“When you let loose upon the earth a great orgy of blood 
and slaughter it is not reasonable to expect that by any rules 
and regulations you will be able to limit these atrocities.’ ’ 

Archbishop Nathan Soderblom of Sweden is no doubt the 
most influential single representative that Protestantism has in 
Europe. Of the six million inhabitants of Sweden all but as 
many thousands are members of the Lutheran church, the largest 
number of Protestants under any ecclesiastical ruler in the world. 
Archbishop Soderblom first came to the United States as a 
theological student thirty years ago and he returned a few 
months ago as primate of Sweden to help the cause of Protes¬ 
tantism in bringing true peace to the world. He speaks seven 
languages, using the English fluently, and he has found his lin¬ 
guistic knowledge of great service in the lectures which he has 
given in this country, and of still greater use in his work at 
'Geneva. He is also an author, the book “Christian Fellowship ,” 


) 


176 THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 

published by Revell & Co. of New York, having been written by 
him. Sweden should have an influence for universal peace, for 
no other country can compare with her financially and economic¬ 
ally. Mr. Brantling, the Swedish member of the League, is said 
to have great influence at Geneva. 

It is hardly necessary to say that Archbishop Soderblom 
believes in the League of Nations of which he says the United 
States is the father, its author being ex-President Wilson, and 
Europe the mother. The father should not discard the child 
because it is weak and puny, and its mother too sick and dis¬ 
tracted to nurse it into life and strength. The theme that burns 
in Archbishop Soderblom’s heart, according to his friend, Dr. 
Remensnyder, is the destructiveness and horror of war. He 
quotes Napoleon as saying that wars are fought to settle diffi¬ 
culties, but on the contrary, war unsettles everything. The Arch¬ 
bishop has all the argument, for he has all the trujth on his side. 
He says that the last war has changed Europe for the worse 
spiritually, economically and nationally so that we can hardly 
expect in our generation to see the old and properous Europe. 
He aptly and truthfully says: “War piety caused by fear and 
vehement calamity is very transient, a storm that rolls big 
waves without touching deep water.” 

Archbishop Soderblom need have no fears that the father 
of the League will not stand loyally by his offspring. No one 
better knows than he that the United States was kept from join¬ 
ing other nations to prevent war, by falsehood and bitter political 
partisanship. It will be seen by his Armistice Day address, from 
which I quote briefly, that he in common with others believes the 
right will finally prevail: 

“The United States has turned its back upon the world in. 
a shameful manner, withdrawing into a sullen and shameful 
isolation which is deeply ignoble because manifestly dishonorable. 

“Happily the present situation in world affairs affords us 


WHAT THE WORLD THINKS OF THE LEAGUE 177 

the opportunity to retrieve the past and render mankind the 
inestimable service of proving that there is at least one great 
and powerful nation which can turn away from programs of self- 
interest and devote itself to practicing and establishing the high¬ 
est ideals of disinterested service and the consistent maintenance 
of exalted standards of conscience and right. 

‘ ‘ The only way in which we can worthily give proof of our 
appreciation of the high significance of Armistice Day is by re¬ 
solving to put self-interest away and once more formulate and 
act upon the highest ideals and purposes of international policy. ” 

Mrs. Maude Wood is President of the National League of 
Women Voters. I do not profess to know whether she is in 
favor of the League of Nations, but I do know from what I saw 
of her remarks in the national meeting at Des Moines that she 
thinks war the worst way of adjusting international difficulties. 
She is credited with saying that she believes civilization is insane 
and scarcely worth saving if civilized men and women cannot 
work out a better device than war for the honorable adjustment 
of international difficulties.” 

I quote from the sermon of the Rev. Horace Percy Silver, 
D. D., rector of the Church of the Incarnation, New York, on 
'Armistice Day, 1923. Dr. Silver has served as rector of some of 
the ablest churches of the country, both east and west. He also 
served several years as chaplain in the army: 

“Think how long it took the Colonies in our own Nation, 
even when victors in a common struggle, to get together and 
agree to live in peace. We know it can be done because it has 
been done. With this lesson before us, let us have patience and 
pray for guidance. 

“Those who would hold back from helping ‘across the sea’ 
must not forget that all we have, whether social, political or 
religious, has come to us from ‘across the sea,’ and surely no 
one will deny that we owe something in return.” 

Senator La Follette is one of the irreconcilables and was 


178 THE LEAGUE OF NATION'S 

a prominent Progressive candidate for President. He wants no 
League of Nations, nothing to stop war. He came from Europe 
only a few days ago after a three months’s stay. One would 
think from what he says that he is strong for the abolition of war. 
He says: 

“The German people have been underfed for seven years 
and are suffering for want of food, fuel and clothing. The situ¬ 
ation is desperate in the large cities, where food riots are com¬ 
mon. The crisis which is at hand involves possibilities too awful 
to contemplate. It menaces more than Germany. Hunger is the 
firebrand of revolution. There is no time for protracted debate. 

“Every American citizen who believes in the fundamental 
principles of democracy—of government by the people—is deeply 
interested in saving the German republic. If the democracy 
which Germany has established with its enlightened constitution 
fails, the inevitable alternatives are communism or monarchy. 

“Not only in Germany, but in many other European coun¬ 
tries that I have visited, the institutions of democracy are being 
crushed or rent asunder by dictatorships of various forms. While 
this madness is upon the world the greatest contribution that 
America can make to Europe and to civilization, is to develop 
and perfect her own democratic institutions and traditions so 
that during the dark days that are ahead they may stand as a 
beacon, lighting the way to all people.” 

It will be noticed that Senator La Follette is very desirous 
that we clothe and feed the people of Europe and be a beacon 
light to the world, but he does not say that we should be an ex¬ 
ample to the world as a nation that does not believe in the enor¬ 
mous expense and cruelty of war. Barring the expense of fight¬ 
ing and preparing to fight, every nation ought to be able to feed 
and clothe itself. 

A prominent daily paper of Cleveland says that the convic¬ 
tion which was expressed by the preachers in their sermons on 
Armistice Day was that war has no place on God's earth. Fol- 


WHAT THE WORLD THINKS OF THE LEAGUE 179 

lowing is an extract from the sermon of Rt. Rev. James DeWolf 
Perry, bishop of Rhode Island: 

‘‘War, as the world has made it, debased by cruelty, poi¬ 
soned by death dealing hatred, is not for a minute to be conceded 
any part or place in God’s righteous and all loving purpose for 
His world.” 

Dr. Henry Van. Dyke, a prominent preacher of New York, 
late Minister to the Netherlands and now a Princeton University 
professor, recently said to the undergraduates of Princeton: 

“To shut our eyes to the existence of the League of Nations 
while we use its machinery for our good endeavors is to play 
the part of the Pharisees and Saducees. 

“Fifty-two countries are in the League of Nations. Only 
three great nations are out. Germany and Russia, because they 
cannot pass the entrance examination. America because—well, 
God knows why she is out—and the politicians give us absolutely 
contradictory reasons. 

“No government which favors, fosters or precipitates a new 
world war would last a single day, in spite of the fact that mili¬ 
tant preparation still makes up the bulk of the national budgets.” 

The president of the naval committee of the French senate, 
Gnstav DeKerquezec, is in favor of the entire scrapping of 
navies. He evidently thinks the League of Nations, or something 
like it. will be adopted and that navies will then be of little use. 
If legislative bodies had quit appropriating their millions for the 
army and navy years ago, wars would have died out. They can¬ 
not thrive without money and men who deprecate wars furnish 
the money to keep them alive. He says: 

“Today France is obliged to remain armed because of one of 
the greatest injustices in history, namely, the withdrawal of the 
guarantees given her in the Versailles treaty. The French people 
would ask nothing better than to lay down their arms and live 
happily and peacefully. Let the allies guarantee us freedom 
of the seas and oeace on laud and we will disarm. 


180 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


“Let us create, while there is time, a real league of nations. 
The present one is useless because it is unarmed. Arm a new one, 
and it can command peace.” 

Visitors to Austria invariably tell of the pitiable condition 
in which they found the country. Most of them thought it 
doomed to decay. Owing to the efforts of the League of Nations 
a wonderful change has come over the reports from Austria. 
Without exception all who are familiar with the situation have 
the highest praise for the work of the League in Austria. Willis 
Booth, president of the International Chamber of Commerce, 
after spending a few days at Vienna, his party, among whom 
was E. H. Gary of the United States Steel Company, expressed 
surprise and satisfaction at Austria’s rapid recovery under the 
League of Nations. 

One of the latest Senators to take a place among our law 
makers at Washington is Alva B. Adams of Colorado, who was 
appointed by Governor Sweet. He is a graduate of Yale and 
a brilliant lawyer. One of the good things that can be said of 
him is that he believes in universal peace. He thinks the way to 
get it is by a league of nations. He says: 

“All the great nations of the world joined in this effort (the 
promotion of universal peace), save one. Practically all repu¬ 
table small nations have joined. America led in developing and 
propagating the ideals upon which the league rested. 

“The League of Nations is a great advantage to'the people 
of the earth. We owe it to ourselves and to the world to join. ’’ 

The Prime Minister of England recently spoke of the fail¬ 
ure of the United States to join the League, and though he had 
John Jacob Astor, Charles M. Schwab, Ambassador Harvey and 
other distinguished Americans for an audience, he did not mince 
words. He said: 

“I shall not attempt to estimate the effect of America’s 


WHAT THE WORLD THINKS OF THE LEAGUE 181 

action. It. is incalculable. But I believe the unwisdom of 
America’s abstention from the world settlement is entering the 
minds of the American people and Government and that when 
another opportunity presents that Government will no longer 
stand aloof from the troubles of the world.” 

Royal Meeker, well known to most League advocates, says: 

‘ ‘ My faith remains unshaken in the possibility of man’s evo¬ 
lution to humanity. The League of Nations may perish, as many 
human institutions have perished because mankind develops be¬ 
yond the need of such an institution, or it may perish because 
mankind cannot attain to a moral and intellectual plane suffi¬ 
ciently high to enable him to put his ideas and ideals into prac¬ 
tice. For the present the idea of the League embodies man’s 
most exalted concept of justice and humanity applied to inter¬ 
national relations. The issue lies in the lap of the future. ’ ’ 

Madame Charlotte W. Bo-alt, President of Newark, 0., 
League of Women Voters, says: 

“It is criminal folly for any leading nation not to get into 
a binding covenant with all other nations able to make war, to 
brand and punish as an outlaw any nation making unjustifiable 
war, and it is the bounden duty of these nations to define at the 
earliest day possible justifiable war.” 

Norman H. Davis, formerly Assistant Secretary of State, 
shares the prevailing opinion regarding the Washington Confer¬ 
ence. He says: 

“In signing the treaty, England, France and Japan agreed 
to nothing whatever except that for which they were already 
bound as members of the League of Nations, unless it be that 
it is an alliance meaning more than its advocates contend, and 
that Article 2 of the Four-Power treaty is more binding upon 
them than Article 10 of the covenant of the League of Nations.” 

Dr. W. Huelster of Cleveland spent some time abroad and 
concludes: 


182 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


‘‘The United States should have taken a mandate over 
Turkey, because no other country in the world holds the moral 
power that the United States could exert in compelling the Turks 
to cease their massacres of the Christians. 

“What the world needs today is sane optimism and the 
right kind of thought, for the power of the mind is illimitable. 
Turkey must be told in no uncertain terms to quit her massacres.” 

Henry W. Pinkham, Secretary of the Brookline, Mass., Asso¬ 
ciation to Abolish War, winds up an able article as follows: 

“In the name of the Prince of Peace why do not all who 
call themselves Christians, be they Protestant or Romanist, join 
in one mighty movement for the establishment of real peace in 
Europe. , ’ 

Hon. Richard Bartholdt, for a long time a member of Con¬ 
gress and an opponent of war when it took courage to stand 
against the war party, has now retired and is living in St. Louis. 
He said-in a speech at Washington: 

♦ 

“Every good man and woman wants to see the country’s 
peace preserved, and even the most incarnate militarist whose 
profession is war does not dare openly to advocate it. This is 
true to such an extent that modern militarism is actually on the 
defensive and apologizes for the existence of armaments and for 
the demands for their increase on the ground that they are 
necessary, not for the conduct of war, but for the preservation 
of peace.” • 

Mrs. Ben Hooper, chairman of the Woman’s League of Wis¬ 
consin, recently attended a meeting at Cleveland. She expressed 
the opinion of all present when she said: 

“War cannot be stopped by outside influence after it has 
started, but the United States can prevent further wars by asso¬ 
ciation with the League of Nations.” 

Hon. Oscar W. Underwood is one of the prominent men 
of the country. He is a candidate for President and has served 


WHAT THE WORLD THINKS OF THE LEAGUE 


183 


in both houses of Congress. He was one of the American mem¬ 
bers of the Washington Conference which concluded a gentle¬ 
men's agreement among five of the naval powers to scrap some 
of their capital ships. Though Mr. Underwood was a member 
of the Conference, he perhaps agrees with naval authorities that 
the agreement to scrap some of the battleships amounts to noth¬ 
ing. He arrived recently from an extended European trip and 
gave out the following in a long interview: 

“I believe that the American people in their heart of hearts 
still believe that the sacrifices of the war were in vain if they do 
not lead to the ultimate peace of the world. There are more 
causes of war existing in Europe today than there were in Janu¬ 
ary, 1914. They may not produce war. Let us hope that this 
may prove to be true, but if it does it will not be because the 
the cause of war is not standing at the outer door. It will not 
be because the angel of peace stands between the contending 
powers, but it will be solely because Europe is financially and 
economically exhausted. 

“Most of this might have been avoided if we had played our 
part when the great war closed, but we did not. We rejected 
the Treaty of Versailles and have put nothing in its place. Our 
Government is drifting in an open sea without a policy of any 
kind to guide us, so far as the difficulties that confront us in 
Europe are concerned. We might have been far on the highway 
to permanent peace and restored business and industrial condi¬ 
tions if we had thrown the predominating force of our great 
potential powers in favor of a permanent, stabilizing, and up¬ 
building program for the rehabilitation of Europe. This we 
have failed to do, and the question that now confronts us is 
whether or not we shall continue to pursue a do-nothing policy. ’ ’ 

Mrs. Harriet Taylor Upton, vice chairman of the National 
Republican Committee, insists that there should be at least two 
hundred women in the National Republican Convention of 1924. 
She has the following to say of the women regarding the plat¬ 
form : 

“They will demand something in the platform that points 


184 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


to peace. That is uppermost in the hearts and minds of women. 
Nine out of every ten women wish something done along that 
line.” 


Lloyd George, late Premier of England, and one of the 
brightest men in the world, when visiting in this country recently 
made it very plain that the English speaking nations could stop 
war at once, if they were so inclined. The United States and 
England are certainly under a great responsibility. Mr. George 
said: 

“ If it could be made so plain that all the world would under¬ 
stand it that if the two nations would make common cause against 
war, the need for firing even a revolver, let alone a gun, would 
have passed. No combination in the world could stand against 
such an agreement.” 

When asked by a correspondent when that could be brought 
about, he said: 

“I won’t say immediately, but there is absolutely no doubt 
about their coming together. And there is no peace in the world 
without it, but the moment such an agreement comes and other 
nations understand it, there will be peace. The world is yearning 
for it. All the smaller nations of Europe are frightened to 
death.” 

Fred B. Smith, who is at the head of the Federal churches 
in America and has spent much time in the East, takes the only 
view a sensible man can take after knowing the facts. What 
he knows and says will give some people an abundance of food 
for thought. He says that in this hour of history it is infinitely 
more important for the sake of foreign missionary work that the 
Christian church should organize to outlaw war than that any 
more foreign missionaries should be sent abroad. 

Favor for the League has even permeated the halls of Con¬ 
gress and the Republican leaders will not be able to control all 
their members by pointing to a gentleman's agreement of doubt- 


WHAT THE WORLD THINKS OF THE LEAGUE 185 

ful value among five nations. Mr. Chalmers, a member of the 
last house and an administration Republican, offered a resolu¬ 
tion and said in support of it: 

‘ ‘ Civilization is approaching danger. A fight is brewing on 
the international world campus. The United States is opposed 
to that fight. If it is to be stopped, it must be now. We must 
not sit supinely by and allow civilization to go on the rocks. 
The lives of your boy and my boy are at stake. Let us act 
vigorously, and act now. 

“I want to raise my voice for peace. While I think there is 
no doubt that the sentiment in this country is overwhelmingly 
opposed to the United States ever again entering Efuropean en¬ 
tanglements, there is no power on earth that could keep the 
United States out of the war if another world war is allowed to 
come. 77 

Even as strong a Republican as Senator George Washington 
Pepper evidently would favor the League if his political party 
was for it. Some time ago he was quoted as saying that it 
would not be a difficult piece of surgery to cut out of the League 
covenant the things that heretofore have afforded our only excuse 
for remaining aloof. 

Dr. Frank Eydelotte, President of Swarthmore College, 
gave the address of the combined churches of Swarthmore, Pa., 
on Thanksgiving Day. He took strong grounds in favor of our 
joining with other nations to maintain peace. Dr. Aydelotte is 
well known as a writer, a scholarly and progressive citizen. He 
closed a strong discourse by the appeal that we “translate the 
best of our private thought and feeling into public act, to forget 
our selfish safety and material benefits and dedicate ourselves to 
the task of expressing the greatness and idealism that is inherent 
in America.’’ 

Sir Reginald McKenna recently spoke to ten thousand 
bankers in the city of New York. From the enthusiasm with 


186 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


which his address was received the greater number agreed with 
him. Following are a few lines from his address: 

“America will soon discover as England discovered that a 
policy of ‘splendid isolation’ will not pay. America must take 
an oar in the boat. Her citizens are everywhere. She has a big 
shipping industry. She has a tremendous foreign trade. All 
this gives her great responsibilities abroad, and sooner or later 
the United States government, refusing to be ignored, will take 
a hand in foreign affairs for her own interest and protection. 
You will find that America should participate in European af¬ 
fairs for the good of all.” 

Dr. J. Paul Goode of the Chicago University recently spoke 
to the teachers of Cleveland. In the course of his remarks he 
said: 

“America will eventually belong.to the League of Nations. 
How soon I cannot tell, but if we had joined at the end of the 
war, the nations would now be on a sound economic basis. 
America cannot stay out. Not only for the prosperity of the 
world, but for her own progress she must join. Our foreign 
trade extends all over the world. If other nations are penniless 
where shall we send our surplus?” 

Sir Henry Lauder said recently at Marion, Ohio: 

“I do not care what kind of an organization you call it— 
a League of Nations—an association of nations, or a friendship 
of Nations—it is the one thing that is needed to save the world 
and it is for this that the world is crying to America. America 
is a great country with a great people: as I travel I find too 
many men who amount to nothing; they have no interest aside 
from their own desires.” 

The papers of recent date contain an interview with Dr. 
David Javne Hill who was returning from a trip to Europe. 
Dr. Hill became ambassador to Germany in 1908, after serving 
as Assistant Secretary of State and as President of the Univer¬ 
sity of Rochester. He hardly dared to say that the United States 


WHAT THE WORLD THINKS OF THE LEAGUE 


187 


had made a mistake by allowing partisanship to cause a delay in 
our joining the League. He was, however, strong for the League 
for somebody else. He said: 

“Europe finds many advantages in the League of Nations 
as it functions today, but the United States could gain nothing 
from membership at this time. The League is doing admirable 
work, especially in the compilation of helpful national statistics. 
It has encountered insuperable difficulty in enforcing Article X 
and that article is practically non-operative at present. 

If» Dr. Hill were not quite so much of a party man, he would 
admit that the League would be as good a thing for us as he says 
it is for Europe. Dr. Hill is much like some others who wish the 
foreigner well. They are willing to trade with him, pray for 
him, send missionaries to teach him a new gospel, but unwilling 
to join him in a league to prevent war. Dr. Hill says, “The 
League is doing admirable work, but we have nothing to gain 
by membership at this time. ’ 7 Does he mean that we should have 
joined earlier, or that we should wait until later? 

I am pleased that the eminent men of the world are urging 
the United States to throw off its policy of isolation and use its 
influence to bring peace to the nations of the earth. Some of the 
distinguished men of Sweden are using their influence to bring 
order out of chaos: 

“ The archbishop and bishops of Sweden have sent telegrams 
to President Harding, Premier Bonar Law, the Archbishop, of 
Canterbury, Cardinal Dubois and Premier Poincare appealing 
to them, and especially to President Harding, to take action ta 
relieve “with all possible speed, and by a straightforward agree¬ 
ment between the representative powers the tension of which 
daily is growing unbearable.” 

“We had hoped for the blessings of peace after the horrors 
of war, but the disunity in the European commonwealth grows- 
worse. Starvation, the poison of bitterness in outraged souls. 


188 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


physical contamination and degradation, are ravaging noble sec¬ 
tions of the human family in central Europe.” 

The British Ambassador to the United States, Sir Auckland 
Geddes, made an address before the Canadian Club of New 
York in which he urged closer cooperation and friendship be¬ 
tween Great Britain and the United States. He said: 

“The choice before us is quite simple—co-operation and 
friendship—take it or leave it. Take it and the world will come 
back to prosperity and happiness. Refuse it, and the process 
of crumbling, as we have already seen in the world, will extend, 
extend, extend.” 

“Things have gone too far in the world today for us to sit 
idly by and say ‘all will come out all right.’ It is a sad admis¬ 
sion to make, but the spiritual life of the world seems to have 
growu weak. The world is without soul, without spiritual life. 
It will be but a short time, as history measures time, when the 
fabric of civilization will crumble.” 

A most encouraging feature of the world situation is the 
number of influential men and women who are taking up the 
League of Nations when they see that everything else to pre¬ 
serve the peace of the world is a failure. Among recent converts 
is Julius H. Barnes, chairman of the United States Chamber of 
Commerce: 

“The day will come when American representatives with a 
solemn sense of great good which would flow from the elimina¬ 
tion in government of fallacies that destroy human impulse and 
the very processes of industry, will enter a conference with other 
nations, prepared by disaster in their trial sympathetically to 
attempt the elimination of these destructive practices.” 

Mr. A. C. Bedford, one of the most prominent business men 
of the country, recently spoke as follows before the New York 
Chamber of Commerce : 

“We are involved in the affairs of Europe and the whole 
world. Every decision of the Reparations Commissions, of the 


WHAT THE WORLD THINKS OF THE LEAGUE 189 

conference at Lausanne, or of the Supreme Council of Prime 
Ministers, involves vital interests of the people of the United 
States, interests affecting the prosperity of our people, the wages 
of our working men, the activity of our factories and mines and 
the welfare of our farmers. ” 

Desiring the opinions of the chairmen of the respective 
parties, I wrote Messrs. Hull and Adams the same day. I had 
a letter promptly from Mr. Hull, who says: 

“ Washington, D. C., May 18, 1923. 
“Hon. Andrew J. Palm, * 

“Meadville, Pa. 

“My dear Sir: 

“Answering your letter of the 10th instant, to hand in my 
temporary absence, I thank you for the benefit of your letter 
and would say in reply that the National Democratic Platform 
stands intact until the next National Convention enacts a new 
one. 

“You, of course, are entirely familiar with its provisions 
with respect to international policies and problems. I find the 
Democrats generally, and vast numbers of Republicans, favor 
the practical application of the principles of international co¬ 
operation, embracing the essentials and fundamentals of the 
foreign policies of the recent Democratic administration. 

“Very sincerely, 

(Signed) “CORDELL HULL. ” 

Mr. Will Irwin, who is a well known writer on war subjects, 
says: 

“Anyone who says that the average man is a better man 
because of the war of 1914-1918 is lying. It did not even rescue 
people from what the militarists call softness. The best men 
die in the war before they have given any children to their stock, 
a device for softening the breed so ingenious that it might have 
been invented by the devil himself. The united churches of 
th$ Christian world and Judaism hold the answer whether there 
shall be another war or not. If they had said, ‘Thou shalt not/ 
there would have been no World War.” 


190 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


Dr. M. Carey Thomas, President Emeritus of Bryn Mawr 
College, has just returned after spending sixteen months in 
Europe and the Orient. She says: 

“I have come, for my own part, to be absolutely sure that 
it is the duty and also to the profit of the United States to delay 
no longer, but to use her great moral and financial power to the 
utmost to help to solve the many pressing problems that must 
be solved if the world, as we know it, is to go on. It seems to 
me our first duty to enter the League of Nations, to which fifty- 
four nations already belong. 

‘ ‘ In Paris I saw a number of people who were on their way 
hack from the annual meeting of the League of Nations held last 
September and October at Geneva. They one and all told me 
that the Italian-Greek difficulty, which seemed to outsiders such 
a blow to the League of Nations, was really a magnificent tribute 
to its strength and power of public opinion organized with the 
League, to which even Mussolini found he must bow. ” 

Judge E;. E. Zeisiger of Akron, O., is active for the cause 
of peace. In speaking of children he says: 

“We must impress them with the great need of peace and 
the devastation that goes with war, or better yet, we must teach 
them more about the ideals and pursuits of peace and teach them 
less of the workings of war. 

“By impressing the coming generation with the teachings 
of Christ and urging the practice of those teachings, much prog¬ 
ress will have been made toward the ending of war. ” 

Dr. Wilbur V. Mallalieu, D. D., of Akron, Ohio, pastor of 
the First Methodist church, said recently in a public address: 

“If the real opposition to slavery was the fact that it was 
so inhuman, what shall be said of the institution of war as carried 
on in modern times? Slavery has sometimes been depicted as 
rather a tolerable condition, with inhuman incidents of course; 
but there is nothing tolerable about war. 

“War is an institution the most inhuman, the most destruc- 


WHAT THE WORLD THINKS OF THE LEAGUE 191 

tive of personality, the most regardless of mental, moral or spir¬ 
itual attainments that ever could be devised. It surely cannot 
be the will of God that mankind should live in a condition of 
war. * 5 


Senator Burke of the Ohio legislature recently offered the 
following resolution. It was opposed by the Republican party. 
It shows Republican tendency, as Mr. Burke is a Harding man, 
and his resolution got some Republican votes: 

“Industrial paralysis, economic chaos, famine and unparal¬ 
leled suffering and the destruction of the world markets for 
American products have resulted from the European situation, 
and no man of intelligence can imagine that American institu¬ 
tions can survive in the midst of this world chaos and anarchy. 

“For America to continue in a position of indifference and 
isolation would lay upon the United States the prime responsi¬ 
bility for the catastrophe which is bound to result should we fail 
in our duty at this hour. America should voice her intention of 
setting the situation right. ’ ’ 

The following appears as part of a long letter jn the New 
York Times from the pen of Mr. Theodore Stanfield, who is a 
member of the American Peace Society, and indicates the feeling 
of that great body on the question under discussion: 

“In Europe brute force reigns supreme, but in our day de¬ 
structive warfare has brought Europe to the parting of the ways. 
The patching of wounds, the hobbling along through war and 
more war reveals no hope either of sanity or life. If Europe 
clings to its war-breeding balance-of-power system the end can 
be but ruin. If she discards this system and establishes justice 
and liberty unler law, if she courageously takes the road to 
peace, there is still hope. If she does not, her children are born 
but to be murdered, her wealth produced but to be destroyed.” 

At the Baptist World Alliance recently in session at Stock¬ 
holm, Sweden, Frederick C. Spurr. president of the Evangelical 
Free Churches of England and Wales, moved a resolution urging 


192 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


the Christian church everywhere to support the League of Na¬ 
tions as a means of avoiding war. Mr. Spurr is well known on 
this side of the water. Last summer he was one of the chief 
speakers at the Northfield conferences. 

Judge Elbert H. Gary, at the head of the largest American 
manufacturing establishment, is regarded as a man of great 
business ability, a man of observation and fairness. He recently 
went to Europe and visited many countries. He embodied his 
impressions in a long speech, a part of which I give: 

4 ‘Every person of reasoning qualifications residing in the 
respective countries visited, from the highest to the lowest, is 
thoroughly tired of war. Its horrors, costs and destructive re¬ 
sults have been so practically demonstrated during the last 
decade that the simplest mind abhors military conflict. The 
reasons, motives and emotions are not the same in all minds, 
but the conclusions are altogether or nearly unanimous. Every 
country would like to have peace, continuous and permanent. 
All would like to close their eyes in sleep without a feeling of 
dread and fear for the future and of a rude and dangerous 
awakening. It is regrettable that the differences of opinion as 
to who is right or wrong become so fixed and stubborn in the 
minds of leaders, many of whom do not expect to become per¬ 
sonal sufferers, as to excite and increase feelings of bitterness and 
hate or of greed and ambition until reason is overcome and man 
is degraded to the level of brutality. Even the one who fights in 
self-defense, which is generally accepted as justifiable, frequently 
exceeds the limits of propriety. 

“The masses of the people believe that they have been ex 
ploited by a few in power, and that they and their helpless chil¬ 
dren unnecessarily have been made to hunger and starve and 
suffer and die. In private conversations this is said by modest 
and unaggressive in large numbers. They hope for relief. They 
believe as never before that the time is coming when ‘wars and 
rumors of wars’ shall cease.” 

Mrs. James Lees Laidlaw made an address at the opening; 


WHAT THE WORLD THINKS OF THE LEAGUE 193 

of the Non-Partisan League recently established in New York. 
She said that: 

“The attitude of the United States with regard to the 
League of Nations was comparable to Nero’s fiddling while 
Rome burned. 

“No political party must dare to appropriate this question 
in the next campaign. It has been the football of ambitious 
politicians. Now, are our United States Senators going to be 
in our hands or are we going to be in theirs?” 

Hon. Theodore Burton, formerly a member of the Senate 
but now a member of the House, is a mild party man but is 
evidently for his party first and for peace afterward. He was 
president of the American Peace Society and very enthusiastic 
for peace, but resigned as soon as it became known that his 
name would be presented as a candidate for President. He is 
strong for the International Court, and as it is one of the main 
features of the League of Nations, it is evident that he is with 
the President first and for the League some other time. He has 
high praise for the League and his principal criticism is denied 
in toto by Hamilton Holt who spent one entire year at Geneva 
and has since read every scrap of the minutes of the League. 
One of the strong points of the League, according to Mr. Holt, 
is that the weakest nation has all the advantages and has even 
taken more privileges than the strongest. Mr. Burton says: 

“The League of Nations was a splendid conception. But 
as one who believed in that covenant with proper, though not 
absurd reservations, for our own protection, I am compelled to 
say that it has not accomplished the object which its supporters 
had hoped. 

“An attendance of five days at Geneva last September led 
me to believe that the meeting together of representatives of 
various nations promotes international understanding. 

“At the same time, imperialistic ambitions have been mani¬ 
fest at every step. The stronger nations have refused to recog¬ 
nize any semblance of equality in the weaker ones. When propo- 


194 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


sitions to limit military expense have been made, they have been 
thrown into the waste basket.” 

When Senator Burton was president of the American Peace 
Society he made several good speeches for the cause of peace. 
In one of them he said: 

“The question of immediate importance before the country 
is the proposed arbitration treaty with Great Britain. Let this 
once be adopted and the greatest benefit in the cause of peace 
will have been gained which has been accomplished for many 
decades. If ratified, other nations will recognize its benefits and 
follow after. 

“All advocates of peace will agree that the rapidly growing 
burden of military and naval expenditures, now amounting to 
nearly $2,000,000,000 a year, is causing economic disturbances 
and an increase of taxation which in some nations is well nigh 
intolerable.” 

Senator Thomas J. Walsh is strong for the League or any¬ 
thing that will bring universal peace. He voted for the League 
when opportunity offered and thinks it of more importance than 
any mere party question. When asked recently what he con¬ 
sidered the world most needed, he said: 

“Peace: Surveying the whole world it is in a state of war, 
or in that agitated and belligerent state of mind that presages 
war, except in the Western Hemisphere. That means the minds 
of men are bent upon means of accomplishing destruction in¬ 
stead of upbuilding civilization, promoting science and cultivat¬ 
ing the arts. 

Hon. James M. Cox, who was the standard bearer of those 
who favored the League, is supposed to know the feelings of those 
who favored joining other nations to prevent war. He says: 

“During the war everybody was for a League of Nations. 
Nobody was opposed to it. Everybody agreed that it was abso¬ 
lutely essential to stop forever the useless slaughter of millions 
of men Why, then, did the Republican senators begin after the 


195 


WHAT THE WORLD THINKS OF THE LEAGUE 

armistice to cast discredit upon the League ? It was nothing but 
partisan bigotry and a blind desire for political ammunition in 
the coming election. Of course, there are some conscientious 
objectors to the League; some few men who are really opposed 
to it. But its organized opposition was a deep-laid and as care¬ 
fully planned a conspiracy as was ever planned by Germany. 
I am not saying that the League is perfect. No human document 
is. As you already know, I have suggested two reservations my¬ 
self, but there must be no reservation that will nullify the 
treaty.” 

Senator Nelson’s heart was right and he was in favor of 
the League, but, like many others, he seemed to think his first 
and highest duty was to his party rather than to his country. 
He said shortly before he died: 

As a matter of fact, I have always been, generally speak¬ 
ing, a pro-leaguer. I am firmly convinced that if we had joined 
the League, perhaps with a few reasonable reservations, the 
world would be in lots better shape today than it is. But we 
did not go in and what’s going on in Europe now is known to 
every man.” 

Frederick J. Libby is Executive Secretary of the National 
Council for the Prevention of War and has been lecturing over 
the West in the interest of the good cause. He thinks that we 
should join with other nations while they want peace: 

“We shall surely drift toward war though, if we are not 
organized and educated against it. Sentiment will not accom¬ 
plish the task. 

“Thomas Edison points out that the 7,000,000 residents 
of London could be wiped out by an air raid in three hours. 
Any two countries in the world are closer today than Massachu¬ 
setts and Carolina were when the colonies formed their federa¬ 
tion. New inventions have made the Atlantic ocean a river. 

“Nations living so closely together must understand one 
another, or war will inevitably follow. The narrow militaristic 
policy of France in dealing with Germany and the attitude of 


196 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


Britain in the near east, correspond to the selfish policy of 
America in standing aloof from the problem. It’s a question of 
peace now or extermination in fifteen years. 

Mr. J. H. Tregoe is Secretary of the National Association 
bf Credit Men. At a recent meeting he expressed himself to 
other members as follows: 

“There is only one way out and that is another League of 
Nations with America standing in the forefront, acting as 
another Moses to lead the troubled tribes of Europe through the 
Red Sea of doubt to the promised land of peace and prosperity. 
My credit sense as a business man tells me the nations across 
the sea face another catastrophe if America shirks her duty in 
the hour of trial and does not help adjust affairs in the Old 
World.” 

Mrs. M. E. Henderson of Columbus is chairman of the 
Peace Committee of the Ohio State League of Women Voters: 

“Preparation by each nation means that the world is getting 
ready for war. Each nation in the last war thought it was de¬ 
fending itself, and therefore considered its course justified. 

“If there were no other way of settling international dis¬ 
putes, this perhaps would be true. But we must make it clear 
there is a better way, through arbitration, and it is our serious 
responsibility to make others see it. Women must believe in this 
and hold to it.” 

Hon. William G. McAdoo is a well known Democratic leader 
and a candidate for President. He is known on all hands as a 
man who does things. In a long non-partisan speech he spoke 
thus of the League of Nations: 

“The League of Nations is not to be spoken of in terms of 
politics, but in terms of humanity and love of man for man. If 
we believe in the beautiful doctrine of the Nazarene, then why 
can’t we be human, generous, magnanimous and Christian enough 
to accept the opportunity to help restore other peoples to happi- 


WHAT THE WORLD THINKS OF THE LEAGUE 197 

ness and to help restore the economic stability of shattered 
countries ? 

“But if we must be material in our thoughts, we should at 
least do the intelligent thing of promoting domestic tranquility, 
helping the European countries to their feet, so that they can 
repay the $10,000,000,000 that they owe us. 

“You are being taxed $500,000,000 to pay the interest on 
European debts because they cannot raise it. It is pure material¬ 
ism to help them to establish themselves so that they can pay 
that interest.’’ 

The average newspaper man when not influenced by political 
or other considerations for war is for peace. The editor, if left 
to himself, is usually a man of heart and intelligence and knows 
that peace is now at hand among nations if we but do our part. 
The New York World may not have been for peace at any price, 
but it has always been for peace when it could be obtained 
reasonably. It has been strong for the League of Nations, and 
when the Venezuela claim threatened to make trouble between 
United States and England the World said: 

“We speak, we read, we think, we feel, we hope, we love, 
we pray— aye, we dream—in the same language. The twentieth 
century is dawning. Let us dream that it will realize our ideals 
and the higher destiny of mankind. 

“Let us dream not of hideous war and butchery, of barbar¬ 
ism and darkness, but of enlightenment, progress and peace. 

“Civilization means that disputes and differences whether 
individual or international, shall be settled by reason or by some 
judicial process, and not by force. Civilization is no more pos¬ 
sible without peace than permanent peace is possible without 
arbitration. 

Edward A. Filene, a prominent man of Boston, said before 
the American Academy of Political and Social Science of Phila¬ 
delphia recently: 

“As a result of the recent war and the failure to bring all 
nations to agreement and support of international law and the 


i 


198 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


machinery necessary for its development and administration 
militarism is being depended upon once more; balance of power 
agreements are being made, which are very likely, even certain, 
again to plunge the world into war unless all nations can come 
to an agreement for supporting peace.’’ 

Mr. Filene is a scholar and philanthropist as well as a busi¬ 
ness man. He is animated by the spirit of humanity which 
regards the world as kin, recognizing the fact that people differ 
mostly for what is beyond their control. They cannot say 
whether they shall be black or white or whether their lot shall 
be east in goodness and plenty or in sin and poverty. Mr. Filene 
has given fifty thousand dollars for the best method of obtain¬ 
ing the peace of Europe and will give another prize for the best 
plan submitted. A dollar here is worth several in Europe where 
money is scarce and want common even among the learned, a 
condition due largely to war, a fact that Mr. Filene recognizes. 

Three prominent women from the Old World visited the 
United States since the war, urging the abolition of war, regard¬ 
ing it as the curse of civilization. Once it would have seemed 
like carrying coals to New Castle to have those from European 
countries talk peace in the United States. Now we are the prin¬ 
cipal nation holding out against peace. The three distinguished 
women w T ho came over here are Mrs. Annott Robinson of Eng¬ 
land, Mile. Theresa of France and Fraulein Gertrude Baer of 
Germany. Fraulein Baer is reported as follows in Pittsburgh r 

“It is always the youth who are sacrified by war, leaving 
old men to perpetuate the old spirit. We are educating the chil¬ 
dren that they will never again follow these false teachers to 
such a useless and wicked sacrifice. Women of Germany realize 
what it is to bring up a whole generation either to meet death 
on the battlefield or come home crippled and helpless to be taken 
care of by the women. They have determined not to bring up 
another generation for this.” 

The Altrusa clubs of the United States recently held a meet- 


WHAT THE WORLD THINKS OF THE LEAGUE 199 

ing at Columbus, Ohio, for the purpose of electing officers and 
transacting such business as might properly come before the 
meeting. After re-electing Mrs. Anna Settle President, and 
selecting other officers, Miss Katherine Locke of Youngstown, 0., 
a publicist of international reputation, was invited to address 
the clubs. Following is an extract from her remarks: 

“A League of Nations is the only means by which we can 
eliminate the waste of war; the putting of human bodies against 
guns. This physical waste has been going on for generations. 
Etverjr nation is taking it up in its own sovereignty. 

“The point is for women to eliminate this waste through 
eternal motherhood and proper adjustments. In politics men are 
the sheltered sex, waited upon and fed by party organizations. 
Women must make their own way. Force will be necessary in 
abolishing war, but it will be done as provided for by the Ver¬ 
sailles treaty, not by armed troops. Any kind of a league will 
be the achievement of women. We are far from being non¬ 
partisan or bi-partisan in politics now, and we will carry out 
our plans for abolishment of war in our own way. ’ ’ 

Prof. Irving Fisher is one of the faculty of Yale University 
and has been a true friend of the League. What he says will 
be of general interest, owing to his high standing in the educa¬ 
tional world. He recently in an address at Chautauqua said: 

“Politics alone is responsible for keeping us out of the 
League of Nations. We should undoubtedly have been in the 
League—and without reservations—had the White House and 
the Senate been of the same political complexion, both Demo¬ 
cratic or both Republican. 

“To destroy war is becoming a necessity. No other interest 
can be allowed to hold it back. Either civilization must destroy 
war or war will destroy civilization. One of these alternatives 
leads us through the League of Nations to a world of peace, 
justice and prosperity. The other leads us through war to a 
world of death and destruction. Which shall it be, League or 
war? 

“We have not yet joined the existing League of Nations. 


200 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


We have not yet created the ‘Association of Nations’ promised in 
the 1920 Republican platform. We are not yet officially repre¬ 
sented in the Permanent Court of International Justice.” 

Mrs. Florence Boeckle is Secretary of the Educational Coun¬ 
cil to Prevent Wars, and she finds that the problem of abolish¬ 
ing war for something more sensible and less cruel was under¬ 
taken early in the history of the country. She finds; 

“The definite task of solving the problem of how to abolish 
war was laid upon the first United States Congress by the Gen¬ 
eral Court of Massachusetts, in a letter signed by Samuel Adams. 

“This letter urged Congress to take into deep and most 
serious consideration whether any measure can be used through 
influence with nations in Europe that national differences may 
be settled and determined without the necessity of war.” 

Mrs. Emily Newell Blair of the Woman’s National Demo¬ 
cratic Committee, says that the settlement of international dis¬ 
putes without war is the most important quesion before the 
world. There may be some difference as to what method is 
best to abolish war, but there is no doubt in any intelligent 
woman’s mind that war should henceforth be regarded only as 
one of the mistakes and delusions of the past. 

Bishop William I. Manning spoke before representatives of 
twenty-seven civic and patriotic societies in the Cathedral of St. 
John the Divine on Thanksgiving Day, 1923. In the course of a 
strong address he said: 

“We ought not be willing, any of us, to see our country try 
to live in selfish and impossible isolation. 

“I believe that as Americans and as Christians we should, 
all of us, do everything in our power to arouse and strengthen 
public sentiment in this matter for the sake of our fellow men. 
It is time for our great country to start forward and give its 


WHAT THE WORLD THINKS OF THE LEAGUE 201 

full help to meet the grave conditions with which the world is 
now faced.’ 7 

Senator Kenneth D. McKellar says that: 

‘ ‘ The world right now is most in need of the practical appli¬ 
cation of the injunction of the Holy Saviour of Mankind, when 
He said, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself.’ Hatred of one another, 
taking advantage of one another, exploiting one another, over¬ 
reaching one another, must cease. Human beings are human 
beings, whether poor or rich. We must treat all as human beings 
and love them as such. 

Senator Edge of New Jersey cannot be said to favor the 
League, because he voted against its ratification. He would no 
doubt be for it unconditionally were it not for the fact that, like 
many others, he considers party first. After seven weeks spent 
in Europe on his honeymoon he had the following to say on his 
return: 

“It is the duty of the United States to call an international 
economic conference. It is folly to attempt to fool ourselves with 
the thought that an isolation policy is permitting us to escape 
contamination, as it were, or form an insurance for our people 
against foreign entanglements. Every false economic move 
abroad directly affects our own prosperity, and from the ma¬ 
terial standpoint millions of dollars are being lost annually by 
our producers, especially the farmers, who are our greatest ex¬ 
porters, because of the sickness of Europe, which can only be 
cured by the assistance of the United States.” 

Dr. Frank says in Current Opinions 

“The cause of war is perfectly clear. It is what is known 
as the old system and means the sort of relation between nations 
that in the past has existed. It means the system by which each 
nation considers itself the guardian of its own interests and 
honor. It is as impossible for a world to exist in peace under 
such a system as for a city to get along without constant riot 
and bloodshed so long as every man is allowed to carry his own 


202 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


gun and maintain his own rights without a policeman and 
courts. It is not a partisan nor even a national movement. It is 
the greatest issue before the world. He quotes Bainbridge Colby 
as saying that isolation is not a policy but a predicament.’’ 

President Allessandri of Chili recently gave his views on 
different international questions, among them the League of 
Nations, of which he spoke as follows: 

“I see in the League’s work a sincere desire to improve 
humanity. I see no objection to collaboration between the League 
of Nations and the Pan-American Union on questions common to 
America and the rest of the world. 

“There is apparently an increasing desire on the part of 
American countries to collaborate with the League’s work be¬ 
cause they understand the League is trying to produce a better 
understanding between all countries and prepare the world for 
the advent of international justice.” 

The American Bankers recently held the largest meeting 
they ever held, it being attended by influential men from all 
over the country. They passed the following resolution uani- 
mously: 

“We believe that the time has come for the government of 
our country to formulate the principles on which it will be able 
to co-operate with other nations to bring about the needed re¬ 
habilitation of European countries and peace in the world.” 

The opinion of Dr. Hugh Black of Union Theological Semi¬ 
nary, New York, will be read with interest by those who admire 
Dr. Black for his love of humanity: 

“America can write pretty snappy notes when an oil well 
in the near east is in danger, but she cannot take part in Euro¬ 
pean affairs when a matter of honor and peace is at stake, nor 
for such a fanciful reason as justice for the oppressed. 

“Men, women and children have been slain in Armenia 
because America refused to take a mandate which the world 
offered her. It is possible for all the money in the world to 


WHAT THE WORLD THINKS OF THE LEAGUE 


203 


flow to America and yet for her to be a disgrace in the eyes of 
God and the world. Ideals, religion and faith are more than 
mere words; they are of the very fabric of life itself.” 

Senator Nathaniel B. Dial thinks the world needs stability 
—in Government and Finance and Humanity. It should lay 
aside all ideas of war, which result in public expense for fight¬ 
ing machinery, and turn its energies to industrial enterprises. 
It should become a producer and not a destroyer. This would 
bring industry and wipe out indolence, which is a curse at the 
present time. 

Henry Ford says: 

“There will be a ‘next war’ just as certainly as tomorrow 
will be a new day, if there is a more deliberate organization for 
it than there is against it. It is not a question of what the 
people ‘want’; it is a question of what they will. It can be 
safely said that the people seldom “want” war; but as seldom do 
they will peace. 

“The people don’t know the truth about war contracts, 
about war profits, about the connection of government employes 
with private business, about the “inside” group that really run 
things—the people don’t know any of the truth, and no govern¬ 
ment has ever dared to let them know. There are people making 
money out of the war today. Millions are being minted out of 
the very blood and suffering this very minute. There is enough 
war tinder lying about to kindle the whole fire again—if nothing 
prevents. ’ , 

Newton D. Baker, recent Secretary of War, said in a late 
address: 

“Men of America, I plead with you, I beg of you, lay aside 
partisanship—let us tease each other about the tariff and bicker 
over the federal reserve system—but on the question whether the 
beauty, the sweetness of civilization are to be destroyed by an¬ 
other war, let us I say, put away our partisanship and as grown 
men consider and deal with this matter—and we may yet save 
the world. 


i 


204 THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 

“I have made the solemn vow that so long as Almighty God 
shall give me strength, no effort of mine shall go unexerted that 
may aid in the slightest, way to make it impossible for my boy 
to say on some future field of carnage: ‘ If father had done his 
part I should not be lying here now, dying.’ ” 

Dr. Alice Solomon has been called the Jane Addams of 
Germany. Her charitable work, like that of our Jane Addams, 
knows no nation and no race. All to her are children of the 
same great Father. *n July, 1923, she gave Mr. Howell, a staff 
correspondent of the New York World, a column interview in 
which she mentioned several things which he might tell the 
people of the United States. Following is a small part of what 
she said: 

“Tell the people of the United States that there has indeed 
been a revolution in Germany that has brought into power a 
class of people who had been deprived of their rights and privi¬ 
leges; through an accident of government they are in power, 
and no government can stand a day unless it is backed by the 
laboring people. 

“But tell them that through the revolution a new factor has 
entered public life. The government now has to reckon with 
women, when it brings out its program. 

“Tell the people of the United States to come into the 
League or to come into an international conference and help make 
a real peace. We are willing to do what we can, to pay what 
we can. We ask you to help a nation which is peaceful at heart, 
willing to work, but let us work with a ray of hope. 

“Tell the French people not to be afraid of us. We have 
few children of the age of six or seven. Few have been born 
since the war. The lower grades of many of our schools are 
closed. Yet the fact that the French are afraid of us is at the 
bottom of all our trouble, even though we are incapable of war.” 

The late James Bryce, whose “American Commonwealths” 
is said to be the best book ever written on the American govern¬ 
ment, the man, who though English, may be called a good friend 
of the United States, says: 


WHAT THE WORLD THINKS OF THE LEAGUE 205 

“A hundred years of tranquil relationships, through vicissi¬ 
tudes which elsewhere would have evoked armed conflict rather 
than arbitration, affords the finest example ever seen in history 
of an undefended frontier, whose very absence of armaments 
itself helped to prevent hostile demonstrations; thus proving be¬ 
yond question that ‘peace can always be kept, whatever be the 
grounds of controversy, between peoples that wish to keep it.’ ” 

At Williamstown in July, 1923, Dr. Charles A. L. Reed, 
formerly President of the American Medical Association, gave 
an address in which he said: 

“Nearly three times as many human being are killed every 
year by preventable diseases as were killed in conflict during the 
World War. The safety of the world against such widespread 
pestilence can be secured only by some co-ordinating agency of 
world-wide influence such as now exists only in the League of 
Nations. ” 

Senator Reed Smoot was recently sent to Europe by Presi¬ 
dent Harding to study conditions and report. The senator re¬ 
turned after President Harding’s death, but he had made the 
study and among other things gave out the following for the 
public: 

“My strongest impression was one of thanking God that the 
Atlantic Ocean intervenes between our land and 'Europe. The 
American people do not realize what a privilege it is to be born 
here, a citizen here, and away from the consuming hatreds that 
now are at the bottom of everything in Europe.” 

Will Senator Smoot or any one else say the condition which 
he describes is not the result of war? Will he deny that this 
country took part in the war that caused the condition he de¬ 
scribes, and should not he and every good citizen do all they can 
for the League of Nations which is the only way devised to bring 
universal peace? Reference is made further along in this chap¬ 
ter to Smoot’s report. The idea of sending Smoot, an implacable 


206 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


foe of the League, to make a report as to the desirability of our 
joining, is too foolish to need comment. He knew before starting 
what he would report. 

Hon. John W. Davis, who was Ambassador to Great Britain 
under President Wilson, and is considered Presidential timber, 
recently spent some time in Europe. He returned a short time 
ago, and said: 

“The need of the hour is an international commission au¬ 
thorized to determine exactly how much Germany is able to 
pay. One thing is certain, Europe cannot solve the present 
situation without the United States. It is the moral duty of this 
country to assist in Europe’s rehabilitation. If we do not do 
so we may lose all the war debts that is owing to us.” 

James M. Beck, Solicitor General of the United States, re¬ 
cently returned from London where he argued a case for the 
United States. He saw the situation and said: 

“I hope the old adage about the darkest hour being just 
before dawn will prove to be true in regard to the situation in 
Europe. 

* ‘ I hope America may do something to bring about a Settle¬ 
ment. It is pitiful how the people over there all look to us to do 
something, and they are still hopeful that we will.” 

Henry Morgenthau, former Ambassdor to Turkey, knows 
the Turks as well, perhaps, as any one outside of Turkey itself. 
He said in a lengthy address a few days ago at Williamstown: 

“It is almost pitiful how we Americans have had to sit with 
our hands tied, though our eyes were allowed ‘to observe’ how 
this wily Turk triumphed at this conference over all other coun¬ 
tries, just as the Germans would have triumphed over all of them 
if we had not entered the war. Will we be responsible in future 
if the Turks’ successful defiance, owing partly to our inactivity, 
will encourage other countries to treat treaties as mere scraps 
of paper?” 


WHAT THE WORLD THINKS OF THE LEAGUE 207 

Mr. Morgenthau is ably supported by Dr. Paul S. Leinbach, 
a prominent pastor and editor of Philadelphia, who is authority 
on Near East questions as he served as secretary of the commis¬ 
sion in Turkey and Armenia in 1919. From what Dr. Leinbach, 
Mr. Morgan and others who understand Turkey say, nothing 
short of being a member of the League of Nations will make 
her a decent nation. Dr. Leinbach says: 

“The Lausanne treaty with Turkey, which will come before 
the United States Senate in a few days for ratification, is 
smeared all over with oil and blood, and its adoption would be a 
national scandal comparable to Teapot Dome. 

“Since 1774, Turkey has solemnly agreed to 21 international 
documents to protect Christians, and all of these agreements it 
has immediately proceeded to violate with impunity. Never in 
their history have they been true to an obligation, and it is the 
utmost folly to suppose that they have been regenerated.” 

Edwin Markham, the well known author of ‘ ‘ The Man With 
the Hoe” and other popular pieces, is reported by his wife as 
follows: 

“My husband is absolutely sure that war can be eradicated 
if only people will agree on a definite program. He believes 
that we have the first requisite for its abolition, the will against 
war. This will must be given working form. Congress, he thinks, 
should pass a law forbidding any declaration of war by the 
United States until a vote of the people could be examined to 
see if they wanted themselves shot. Lastly he advocates an inter¬ 
national court for the settlement of disputes between nations.” 

William Dean Howells, one of the best known American 
authors, saw the fallacy of the military men even in his day. 
He said: 

“Peace has been blamed by a great many people who have 
aaid that we should degenerate morally and physically without 
the tonic of battle. Yet, curiously enough, a blessing was in¬ 
voked upon the peacemakers, who should be called the children 
of God, while nothing of the kind was pronounced concerning 
the makers of war. 


208 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


The Reverend Nehemiah Boynton, pastor of the Clinton 
Avenue Congregational Church of Brooklyn, returned recently 
from a trip to Europe. He is reported as saying that England 
is strong for the friendship of the United States and will brook 
no misunderstanding that would change it. Great Britain knows 
that her strength lies in a friendly alliance with this country, 
but many of her people believe that we have made a football of 
the League of Nations. There is plainly a disappointment that 
America abandoned the ideals we set forth and put politics in 
their place. 

Ex-President Taft was for years the leading advocate of 
peace and a strong supporter of the League of Nations, advocat¬ 
ing its adoption from the same platform with Woodrow Wilson. 
He is now, as all know, Chief Justice of the United States. He 
was evidently uninfluenced by party considerations when he said: 

“Had I been in the Senate I would have voted for the 
League and treaty as submitted, and I advocated its ratification 
accordingly. I did not think, and I do not think now, that 
anything in the League covenant as sent to the Senate would 
violate the Constitution of the United States, or would involve us 
in wars which it would not be to the highest interest of the 
world and this country to suppress by universal boycott, and, 
if need be, by military force/’ 

Dr. M. K. McKay of the department of economics of the 
University of Pittsburgh said in an address before the business 
men of his city: 

“We were willing to accept our share of the responsibilities 
of war. Why should we be unwilling to accept our share of the 
responsibilities of peace? 

“For the first time in all history conscientious and practical 
statesmen set out to make peace permanent, when the covenant 
for a League of Nations was incorporated into the Versailles 
peace treaty. This covenant, we need to remember, met with 
the unanimous approval of the delegates at the peace confer 


WHAT THE WORLD THINKS OF THE LEAGUE 209 

ence. Instead, therefore, of being Mr. Wilson's League of Na¬ 
tions, it is the league today of fiifty-four nations, representing 
approximately three-fourths of the human race." 

Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, President of Columbia Uni¬ 
versity and well known as a man of political and other affairs, 
said in an address before the New York Chamber of Commerce: 

“America’s economic ills are the result of things beyond the 
nation’s boundary lines. A great war, regardless of where it is 
fought, is a world war and it is ill advised for the United States 
to talk of isolation. The League of Nations has placed Austria 
back on her feet. Conditions in Austria are steadily improving 
and I am convinced that there is good in the League of Nations. 
One lesson the people have learned is that war can destroy in a 
few months what it has taken centuries to build.” 

We know that the cost of the late war was enormous, so 
expensive in life, limb and money and morals that the better 
part of the world cries out that they want no more war. They 
expect a cheaper and in every way a better settlement of all 
questions than can be afforded by war. The moral cost of any 
conflict in which every life taken counts the murderer a hero 
on one side or the other must of necessity be large, but no at¬ 
tempt as far as I know has been made to estimate it except that 
President W. B. Joyce of the National Surety Company says: 

“An item of $100,000,000, hitherto not taken into calcula¬ 
tion, must be added to what the war cost America. This huge 
sum is the estimated cost of the 1920 crime wave, which is trace¬ 
able to the effect of the war on humanity. 

“Every war is followed by widespread disrespect of law. 
Cynical thoughts of the cheapness of human life, indifference to 
human suffering and disregard of others’ rights are aftermaths 
of armed conflict.” 

A Christian Citizenship Conference has been held annually 
for several years at Winona Lake in Indiana. At the last meet- 


210 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


ing, which was largely attended, the following resolution was 
unanimously passed: 

“We express hearty approval of the international court of 
justice and believe that all nations, including the United States, 
should be members of the court. 

“We believe this court is a most important step toward 
world peace, but we do not believe it to be adequate, as it will 
deal only with disputes over questions of rights and not over 
questions of policy. 

“We favor a world organization which shall have the right 
to deal with all matters international in character, likely to lead 
to war.” 

Dr. Sherwood Eddy, after telling what the League has 
already accomplished, says: 

“Three countries in the world today are unwilling to admit 
that any good can come of the League of Nations. These are 
Soviet Russia, which distrusts all nations under capitalism; 
despairing Germany, which distrusts'' the League as a possible 
instrument of French revenge, and isolated America. We talk 
of outlawing war when we are unwilling to co-operate with other 
nations in providing the only practical concrete alternative to 
war in some working instrumentality of peace. ” 

Even military men admit that war is a most expensive way 
of determining international disputes. Colonel David L. Stone 
of the United States Army has been studying the French-German 
question and writes his impressions regarding it. He says: 

“France has undertaken a task which is impossible of ful¬ 
fillment by her. Economically, the thing is bound to be a loss. 
We know that when two nations engage in war, both of them 
will certainly emerge poorer than when they started in, because 
war is a destructive venture and a very costly one. When a war 
is over the winner always tries to recoup his losses at the expense 
of the loser, but when, as in this case, the winner is depending 
upon the payment of the debts by the loser for bolstering up its 
ow r n financial structure, and by its act has made the loser im- 


WHAT THE WORLD THINKS OF THE LEAGUE 211 

measurably poorer, then it is a “cinch” that both sides are going 
to lose. ” 

Homer S. Cummings, former Chairman of the Democratic 
National Committee, returned in August last after a careful 
Study of the European situation. He said on returning: 

‘ ‘ Industries in the Ruhr are dead. The railroads are operat¬ 
ing, but the service is irregular. The German Republic is slip¬ 
ping and the country is on the verge of a revolution. The indus¬ 
trial life of Germany will be strangled completely unless the 
Ruhr situation is cleared up. France will not get out of the 
Ruhr. Yet conditions as they are now, with a complete deadlock, 
would never have occurred had the United States entered into 
the League of Nations and assisted in placing stricken Europe 
upon its feet.” 

Baron Sergius A. Korrf was one of the speakers at Williams- 
town. He was formerly Governor General of Finland, and 
speaks from personal knowledge. He said: 

“The League of Nations has taken deep root in Europe. 
The great powers are not altogether conscious of this fact, but 
they have got into the habit of realizing that the League exists 
and is active. The smaller powers, on the other hand, are in¬ 
tensely interested in the League and in the international court. 
Their only hope of defending themselves lies in international 
justice. 

“Here is where the force of Article X comes in. The League 
promises to see that territorial boundaries are respected, and 
therefore these small countries cling to the League for dear life. 
It is the breath of their existence.” 

Sir Edward Grigg, former political secretary of Loyd 
George, was one of the Williamstown speakers. He said: 

“The refusal of the Senate to ratify the Treaty of Versailles 
and the League of Nations has had a repressing psychological 
effect on Europe, and had been largely responsible for the hope¬ 
less state of mind which has kept the German people from taking 


212 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 

a more active course toward meeting their obligations. The 
Reparations Commission has failed because of the absence of the 
United States from full representation on it. 

“America’s failure to ratify, also had a bad effect on b ranee, 
making her feel that her security would end with the end of the 
occupation of the left bank of the Rhine. 

Melville E. Stone is an ardent supporter of any measure or 
method that promises to bring peace to a world tired of war. 
He was at one time head of the Associated Press and is now its 
counselor. He is reported as saying that our responsibility dur¬ 
ing the recent war was not so great as it is at this moment. 

Dean John H. Wigmore of the Northwestern Law School 
has just returned from Geneva where he served on one of the 
committees. He reports the League of Nations as alive as Con¬ 
gress and says it has quieted several impending wars. 

The Milwaukee Journal offers the following poser for those 
who believe in the isolation of the United States: 

“And if there is to be no League of Nations to prevent occu¬ 
pations and the killing of children by shrapnel, and the slaying 
of adult civilians, by what other principle can nations be guided 
except that which Mussolini has followed?” 

Walter Leaf, chairman of the board of directors of West¬ 
minster Bank, London, looks forward with anxiety: 

“Ever since the war two fundamentally different tendencies 
have-been shaping themselves into ever sharper opposition. The 
one is the policy of healing the wounds of the war by a return to 
peace; the other is the policy of vengeance, of ‘penal servitude’ 
for enemies, of trust to violent remedies. For the first policy 
England has stood throughout. At first she hoped that the 
United States stood with her; it was with deep regret that she 
saw the authors of the League of Nations prefer splendid isola¬ 
tion to any active part in settling the affairs of mankind. 

“With Japan terribly crippled in power and the United 


WHAT THE WORLD THINKS OF THE LEAGUE 213 

States silent, England now stands alone among the great powers 
in maintaining the principles for which the League was founded. 
It is impossible to look forward to the future without grave 
anxiety, without serious apprehension lest, after escaping, at dis¬ 
astrous cost, the threat of one military tyranny in Europe we 
may be rapidly falling under the dominion of another. ’ ’ 

Herbert S. Houston of Chicago, publisher of “Our World/' 
said recently in an address: 

“America, when it declared war, had the courage to face 
the fact that the Democratic principle, its ver^ life, was at stake 
and its best were called to defend it, telling them it was to be 
a war to end war. When the war was won, America didn’t join 
with the allies in making peace or in the League of Nations, but 
pursued its own independent way. 

“Senator Smoot’s report referred to this need as the ‘Euro¬ 
pean mess,’ and he expressed great satisfaction ‘because we were 
well out of it. ’ 

“Who can so much as imagine Jesus ever turning His back 
on need because it was a ‘mess’’! Instead of being a reason for 
staying out, it was a reason always for going in. When we so 
lightly refer to this ‘mess,’ let us pause and consider whether 
we had any part in making it. 

“But against Senator Smoot’s report, we have the seasoned 
judgment of that able Christian soldier, General Henry Allen, 
who commanded the troops on the Rhine. He said that, regard¬ 
less of the political reasons that brought about America’s action, 
the fact remained that the present European impasse could not 
have happened had we participated in winning the peace.” 

President Woolley of Mount Holyoke College says: 

“We are at the parting of the ways, and unless we adopt 
the policy of co-operation and good will among nations, civiliza¬ 
tion itself will be imperiled. I welcome every attempt to arouse 
the unthinking and to convert the unconverted.” 

Kirby Page, a distinguished writer and lecturer, and author 
of a book on war, recently delivered an address at Akron, 0., in 
which he said: 


214 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


“What is to become of war is up to the churches and they" 
must make up their minds now what they will do with it. War 
is not a spirit, nor an end, but rather a damnable method of 
achievement. War is futile, ineffective and self-defeating. 

“We must create an international mind. We must think in 
terms of the entire world and not our own little part of it. ’ ’ 

Rosa Price Peabody was one of the thousands who spent 
time in France ministering to wounded and sick soldiers as a 
faithful nurse. After telling in the Atlantic Monthly some of 
the sickening scenes of war, she says: 

“Hundreds of thousands of us saw those horrors and worse. 
However, we refuse to talk about them, but however tightly we 
lock our rememberance in our breasts they are not hidden from 
us. We are still shaken with that same vibration of the shock 
and hideousness of it all. We think of those who bravely died. 
We think, too, of those who vowed that these others should not 
have died in vain. Can we, dare we, travel over the smooth road 
farther and farther away from those great peoples of the earth 
whose companions we once were.” 

The French Ambassador to the United States, M. Jusserand, 
recently spent some time at Geneva, observing the League at 
-work. He said on returning: 

“It is remarkable that the League has been able to function 
as well as it has, in view of the obstacles placed in its path. The 
members of the League assembly are sincere men who are making 
every effort to arrive at the end for which the League was formed. 

“When one stops to consider that the League idea is centu¬ 
ries old and that the present assembly is the first realization of the 
hope of all these years, it may be said that the results thus far 
accomplished are gratifying.” 

Senator Joseph I. Robinson of Arkansas, who is the Demo¬ 
cratic leader of the Senate, recently made a trip to Europe prin¬ 
cipally to see the League at wohk. On his return he said: 

“It is a mistake to say that the League of Nations is dead 
dr dying. It is functioning effectively in many important mat- 


WHAT THE WORLD THINKS OF THE LEAGUE 


215 


ters and appears to be rendering especially substantial services in 
promoting conference, co-operation and good will among its 
members. 

“Whatever may be an American's opinion of the League as 
related to our country, one cannot dwell in the atmosphere in 
which its proceedings are conducted without becoming conscious 
that Geneva, through the League, has become a center of learn¬ 
ing, and, in a sense, a clearing house for 'European troubles.” 

Major Charles Y. Gordon recently addressed a Pittsburgh 
audience and though he spoke plainly and emphatically, he 
voiced the general'sentiment -when he said: 

‘‘Individualism among the nations is impossible today with¬ 
out treachery to humanity. The nation that stands as an indi¬ 
vidual, refusing to accept the responsibilities for other nations, 
maintains individualism at the expense of honor and brother¬ 
hood.” 

Senator Glass gave the League of Nations and ex-President 
Wilson high honor on armistice day at Washington, November 
11, 1923. In the course of his address he said: 

“Events have proved the feasibility of ‘the great ideal,’ the 
League of Nations, and if the League has progressed without 
the United States, of what inestimable value to civilization it 
would have been in these fateful years had we not withheld our 
sympathy and deserted our allies of the great war?” 

“We shall come to acclaim Armistice Day as the prelude, if 
not the exact beginning of an era which w T ill mark the nearest 
approach in the centuries to the Christian’s aspiration of ‘Peace 
on Earth, Good Will to Men,’ and then as an incident insepara¬ 
ble from this ceremonious occasion we w T ill stand uncovered be¬ 
fore him to whom, through the goodness of God, will belong the 
most enduring honor.” 

I have spoken of the New York World , one of the leading 
newspapers of the world, being for the League enthusiastically. 
Recently it said: 


216 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


“Five times since the armistice we have faced this annual 
assize of our ‘ sullen and selfish isolation. ’ It is too larfce to fore¬ 
stall, as we might have done, some of the fearful costs to hu¬ 
manity of our abstention. It is not too late to turn in our own 
ignoble course. It is not too late to set the nation on the right 
way. ’ * 

The Toronto Globe, one of the ablest papers in Canada, 
takes a right view of the question. It concludes that the present 
chaos is a frustration of the ideals for which the allied armies 
fought and died, hut out of it must emerge an order, if there is 
any purpose in history, in which civilization will rest on the 
security, not of armed alliances and the old balance of power— 
the reign of force—but of the pledged honor of all nations, bound 
in a common compact to keep the peace and to place the weak and 
the strong on an equal footing. 

•// 

To show that the church is growing more enthusiastic rather 
than otherwise on joining with other nations to establish uni¬ 
versal peace, I give the following resolution passed unanimously 
by the Federal Council of Churches at Indianapolis on Decem¬ 
ber 14, 1923. The resolution was offered by Dr. William Adams 
Brown of the Union Theological Seminary, New York: 

“We earnestly urge that the United States co-operate with 
others in an efficient international organization wherein all na¬ 
tions may take their full share in establishing world justice, in 
bearing world burdens and in maintaining world peace, either 
using for this purpose existing agencies like the League of Na¬ 
tions with such amendments to the covenant as may be necessary, 
or proposing some more effective substitute. ” 

The calendar of Dr. Andrew W. Blackwood’s church at 
Columbus, 0., November 11, 1923, contained 4his notice: 

“Throughout the land today women are pleading for World 
Peace. We celebrate this Armistice Day, but with confessions 
of failure and of sin. As a World we have not achieved that 


WHAT THE WORLD THINKS OF THE LEAGUE 


217 


measure of Justice which is essential to Peace. Deep hatreds 
and fears abide. Nations today are competing in preparations 
for another war. 

“In the World War we women suffered supremely, and we 
still mourn the loss of our youths. We were loyal then, and wo 
are loyal now, but we have no more of our growing boys to offer 
in sacrifice to the God of war. We do not believe in the old his¬ 
toric system of aggressive nationality and of bitter economic 
rivalry, the system which has so often hurled the Nations into 
war. We want World Peace. ” 

The National Commander of the American Legion, John R. 
Quinn, in an Armistice Day proclamation expresses himself as 
dissatisfied with the results of the late war. He evidently ex¬ 
pected statesmen rather than politicians to decide what the 
United States should do. He says in his proclamation: 

“At 11 o’clock of November 11, 1918, most of us who were 
in the service believed we had brought to a successful end a war 
against war. In that belief we must confess a degree of disap¬ 
pointment. Is it then too much to ask also that on this, the 
fifth anniversary of the armistice, the entire nation dedicate 
itself, with us who know the real nature of war, to the ceaseless 
striving for perpetual peace—not to be gained by spineless pacif¬ 
ism or ignorant disregard for our national security, but by the 
promotion of international good will in any way that will not be 
incompatible with safety?” 

Dr. Samuel Zane Batten, in a pamphlet published by Doran 
of New York, gives the military man something to think about, 
though the trouble is that most of them think only in terms of 
war. I have quoted a reformer as saying that the hardest work 
in any reform is to get men to think. College presidents have 
recently been discussing ways to get students to think, consider¬ 
ing that the most important part of a college education. It 
recalls the sayings of Joshua Reynolds that there is no expedient 
to which a man will not resort to avoid the real labor of think¬ 
ing. Among many unanswerable things, Dr. Batten says: 


218 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


“The World War is one of the greatest calamities that has 
ever befallen the human race. It is impossible for any man to 
appreciate the magnitude of this calamity or to measure its 
tragedies. Fully eight million men have been killed or have died 
of wounds; another eight millions have been injured in various 
ways and are crippled for life. This is sad enough; but this is 
only the beginning of the tragedy. The war has cost the nations 
billions of dollars, and little children generations hence will be 
born under the shadow of this war debt; billions of money that 
ought to have gone for education and health and human well¬ 
being must be spent to pay the interest on this colossal debt. But 
even more tragic than this is the fact that millions of homes 
have been broken up and millions of children must begin life 
without a father’s care and counsel. Many millions of children 
are being cheated out of an adequate education and a fair chance 
in the world. But quite as dark as all' this is the fact that na¬ 
tional enmities have been intensified, and for generations men 
of one race will suspect and hate men of other races.” 

Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick is one of the ablest and best 
known preachers in the United States. He is one of the lec¬ 
turers at Yale, and that is sufficient evidence of his ability, if 
he were not so well known. He is strong for the League of 
Nations or anything that will end war, the most wicked thing 
on earth and the greatest drawback to all Christian work. He 
said in a sermon on last Armistice Day: 

“The conviction grows in thoughtful men that there is no 
use in trying to baptize modern war with ideal aims. Modern 
war and ideal aims are antithetical terms. War does not protect 
the weak; it makes the earth perdition for them. War does 
not stop war; it sows dragon’s teeth of hate and every war 
makes another more probable. War does not check militarism; 
in Europe today more men are under arms and in America we 
are spending more in military establishments than was true in 
1913. War does not further the purposes of God; it splits God 
up into little tribal deities, the celestial counterparts of Hinden- 
burg and Foch, and sets people clamoring before those heathen 
idols for the blood of their enemies. Diplomats pull the wool 


WHAT THE WORLD THINKS OF THE LEAGUE 219 

over people’s eyes and make them readier to be led like beasts 
to the shambles when they baptize war with moral aims. Write 
it down and underline it. You will get salvation out of hell 
before you will get redemption for this world out of modern 
war. ’ ’ 


About seven hundred bankers and business men attended 
the recent lecture of Fred I. Kent of the Bankers’ Trust of New 
York, before the Bankers’ Club of Cleveland. Mr. Kent is con¬ 
sidered by many as the leading authority of the country on 
foreign exchange. He says that the United States, France and 
England should get together to study the reparations problem 
and the question of allied debts, that they might be worked out 
on sound economic principles. He says further that if the re¬ 
duction in military forces be made on a basis of police efficiency 
the peace of the world would be secured. 

Dr. Fridtjof Nansen, who was awarded the Nobel prize in 
1923, is High Commissioner at Geneva. What he thinks and 
says of the League of Nations is founded on fact and fairness 
to a far greater degree than if he had gone there handicapped 
by a national campaign in the United States with the political 
party that made opposition to the League its war cry. He is 
writing a series of articles for the Christian Century. Speaking 
of the good to be accomplished by the League he says: 

“The situation of Austria a little more than a year ago 
certainly was much more difficult than Germany is or every was. 
In fact, nearly all experts in economy at that time told us that 
the future of Austria was hardly possible because she did not 
have the resources to continue a national life. The fact is that 
many nations—among them your great nation—tried for three 
years to help them. They completely failed. Then the League 
of Nations tried it for one year and the League of Nations com¬ 
pletely succeeded. The League machinery has worked extremely 
well in various cases and there is no other machinery; but if you 
can create better, please go ahead and do it, and no one will 




220 THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 

welcome it more than we who are in the work. But the League 
is there and can be used at any moment. I know that many in 
this country tell me that the League is dead. I have heard 
several times that it is dead. 1 can only say that if the League 
is dead it is certainly the most active corpse history has ever 
known. Mankind—at least the whole of civilized mankind—-is 
one. You cannot split it up even into nations. At least its 
interests have a far greater share of identity than of difference. 
Science, art, intelligence, morality, certainly mark no boun¬ 
daries. ’ ’ 

Once in a while we find a military man who is not so 
impressed with his business as to lose sight of everything else 
and imagine that his trade is the most important and honorable 
in the world. General Tasker H. Bliss says that to say nations 
can cooperate successfully to make war, as the allies did, but that 
it is not worth while to attempt to prevent war is simply to 
dethrone reason. 

When Theodore Roosevelt was President he was considered 
a sort of an American Emperor William who believed in the 
sword. That he greatly changed his mind after the World War 
is evident from what Col. George Haven Putnam says in an 
article in the Review of Reviews for February, 1919, in which 
Col. Roosevelt is represented as saying: 

“When I was in the White House, I took the ground that 
while we ought always to maintain good relations with Great 
Britain, it was really not possible to agree in advance that every 
issue that arose was to be adjusted by conference or by arbitra¬ 
tion. I have changed my mind. I hold that there are, and that 
there can be, no possible issues between England and America 
or any English speaking peoples in the world, which ought not 
to be and which cannot be, adjusted, in the most cases by confer¬ 
ence, and in any extreme difficulty by arbitration. ” 

Just what the difference is whether a man speaks English 

or some of the many other languages I leave for others to decide. 


WHAT THE WORLD THINKS OF THE LEAGUE 221 

I maintain, however, that what is good for the English ought to 
be good for any other nation. 

I am not prepared to say that General Charles G. Dawes, 
who made or assisted in making the United States budget last 
year, is against the League of Nations, but he affiliates with the 
party that opposes having anything to do with foreign nations 
except to sell them goods. His opening speech as one of the 
commissioners to consider the monetary situation in Germany 
was widely read and much admired. If anyone could read it 
carefully and not conclude that he was condemning the policy 
of his party on “aloofness,” he must have a mind unusually 
warped by partisanship. In speaking of it the Chicago Journal 
says: 

“The Dawes speech, still wet from the presses, is stirring 
the world profoundly. This gives an inkling of how much*the 
United States by its influence might have done to save Germany 
and other parts of Europe, if there had been responsible leaders 
in General Dawes’ party to stand up in 1920, as Dawes now does, 
and repudiate ‘the American nationalistic demagogues’ who went 
about stirring up prejudices and international hatreds in order 
to win an election.” 

Miss Ruth Morgan of New York is one of the vice-Presidents 
of the National League of Women Voters and is emphatic for 
the abolition of war. At a recent meeting in Cleveland she used 
the following language: 

“We who have been through the last war have learned cer¬ 
tain things. Now that the smoke has cleared away and our eyes 
see more clearly, we realize that in modern war the fate of the 
victors is almost as pitiful as that of the victims. 

“The most important group of objectors to our arguments 
will be those people who agree with our principles, but believe 
war is inevitable, that war 'alwayshas been and always will be.’ ” 

The army and navy sympathizers in Congress and out see 


222 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


the approaching storm of public opinion all over the world which 
asks for peace instead of war, and they hope to deceive the ma¬ 
jority in the future as in the past by holding before their eyes 
the ghost of danger, if the army and navy would cease to be 
ready to kill and destroy. Those who love war for either money 
or ambition, the only two things that commend the army and 
navy to any one, will have clear sailing for some time if they 
can but kill the League of Nations, the only thing that stands 
in their way. The big army and navy groups have been asked 
to get busy and see that the military appropriations are increased 
rather than diminished. Battleships, years before the Washing¬ 
ton Conference, were pronounced out of date as fighting ma¬ 
chines, but air machines for killing are badly needed according 
to generals and admirals, the men to whom the world thus far 
seems to listen. Junkets at government expense, home guards 
for self defense, appealing to the National Legion for help in 
the name of patriotism, efforts to get Japan to take Germany’s 
place, to afford military men an excuse for existing, speeches by 
noted military orators in different parts of the country in which 
the need of an army and navy are set forth in glowing terms 
are some of the propaganda used to keep this the most warlike 
nation on earth. 

I might fill several volumes with the opinions of those who 
are in favor of the League or anything that promises to substi¬ 
tute peace for war. I have given only those that came to my 
notice without solicitation nor have I any apology for telling 
what noted men and women think on this subject. As said in 
the preface, the opinion of many on any subject is better than 
that of one, no matter how well qualified. “Even Homer nods.” 


CHAPTER XI. 


Is Senator Lodge Consistent? 

“One murder makes a villain; millions a hero." 

—Bishop Porteous. 

In the past there may have "been wars of self defense, but 
it was not when everybody was talking peace; not when the 
commander in chief of onr army and navy said that war is 
abhorrent to the world. It may be possible for a man to be 
sincere in the thought that he is a consistent Christian and a 
war man at the same time, but no one can have much faith in 
the Christianity of the man whose fears and suspicions are so 
much stronger than his religion as to control his actions. What 
the Medical Journal says on this point may be of interest. It 
says: 

“We have learned how to settle personal difficulties without 
fisticuffs; we look down on brawls; and it is no longer ‘noble’ to 
fight duels. The counties or cities of a state do not fight one 
another. There is a legislature and a state government. Our 
states live together without military preparedness against one 
another. There is a Congress and a United States government. 
Why should there not he an international congress and govern¬ 
ment? There must be, before we are truly civilized. Call it 
League of Nations or by whatever name you wish. We must 
find a way for nations to live together in this world without the 
necessity for military preparedness against one another. The 
only way to do this is to avoid the causes of war, and to apply 
to nations the same principle and mode of co-operation that pre¬ 
vents war among the cantons of Switzerland; that prevented war 
among the German states; that keeps the peace among our 48 
states, among the counties of our states, and among the individu- 


224 THE LEAGUE OF NATION'S 

jgi? 

als of our communities who are respectable and who are really 
“too proud to fight.’’ Individuals can avoid fighting because 
there are better ways of adjusting differences between individuals 

than by fighting. , 

“There is no use in claiming that we are civilized, or that 
we are Christian, or that we even have common sense, until we 
can conduct this world in such a way as not to lead to nor permit 
such a calamity as that which began in 1914. If we try_Jx> go 
on again on the old basis, we are not practical nor sensible 
beings; we are not worthy of being trusted with this earth, which 
is so rich, so beautiful and so kind, when properly used.” 

Senator Borah in reply to the assertion that we need ships 
to carry soldiers, asked, without any one offering to answer his 
question: 

“Where is the necessity for going further into the treasury 
of the United States upon the question of preparedness 1 ? Is 
there danger from Germany, which is slithering down day by 
day to deeper ruin and misery? Is there danger from Russia? 
Is there danger from Ehgland, France, Japan? F^om what 
source comes the menace that there should be heard in the Sen¬ 
ate chamber and from the rostrum throughout the country this 
cry of preparedness, taxing the people a little more.” 

It is hard to convince the world that the United States is 
sincerely for universal peace and the proper nation to lead the 
world as long as we recognize leaders who say they are for 
peace but preparing for war. We judge a man by what he does 
rather than what he says. The one who is earnestly for peace 
thinketh no evil and prepares for none. Our President seems to 
have two views of the peace question, one of which is directly 
opposed to the other. He promised the country something bet¬ 
ter than the League of Nations. That was, no doubt, calling 
a conference and getting five of the leading nations to scrap 
some of their war ships. That looked toward peace; but was 
far different from advising his own nation to organize all its 


225 


IS SENATOR LODGE CONSISTENT? 

men ana material for self defense. His speech to the conference 
was all for peace with no suspicion; his message to Congress and 
incidentally to the people was for war with an “if,” as has been 
the case for hundreds of years. 

Appropriating three hundred and twenty-five millions at 
one time and a few millions at another looks more like preparing 
the navy for active use than scrapping it. The one great trouble 
with nations has arisen from their unfounded suspicion and dis¬ 
trust of one another, and the man who is to lead the peace move¬ 
ment must be one who can allay this distrust and suspicion. 
He must think and act it every day of the year and show that 
he regards it of supreme importance. Those who were instru¬ 
mental in defeating the League of Nations temporarily for the 
United States have created the impression abroad that neither 
they nor their party cares to have anything to do with foreign 
nations. 

About the close of the year 1922 Senator Borah offered an 
amendment to the naval bill, requesting the President to call 
an economic conference of the nations to consider questions of 
urgent interest. As Senator Borah was one of the irreconcilables 
he was at once charged with being a flopper, though a good man 
will change his mind when he finds he is wrong. Senator Borah 
has the common sense idea that a nation ought to pay for the 
last war before preparing for the next. Evidently fearing that 
Senator Borah’s amendment might prove so popular as to pass 
the Senate, three administration senators urged him to with- 
<3raw it on the ground that the President intended to do that 
very thing and its passage or discussion would embarrass him. 
Senator Borah didn’t care particularly who did the proper thing, 
and agreed to withhold his amendment. Senator Lodge made 
a speech on the floor of the Senate telling the senators why the 
amendment should not pass. In the course of his speech he said: 

“It will be useless to call a conference for a limitation of 


226 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


land armaments without knowing as a preliminary step that 
France is ready to withdraw her objections, and ready to consider 
with the other powers the limitation of her land forces. 

“It will be futile to call a conference for the reduction of 
land armaments unless it is known that those powers that are 
summoned are not going to object at the very beginning to any 
consideration of that point. 

“I deplore the tendency in America to cut the strength of 
the navy below the point of efficiency. I have no sympathy with 
the extremes to which the House has gone—I was about to say in 
the destruction of the army—but in reducing it to a point so 
low as to be positively perilous. It is not economy; it is the most 
reckless extravagance to reduce the army and navy of the United 
States to a point where we have no means of performing the 
duties which every great nation is obliged to perform.’ ’ ■ 

One who reads this would think the author a war advocate, 
even if he did not know that he more than any other man is 
responsible for the United States not being in the League. He 
deplores the condition of our army and navy, though neither he 
nor any one else has told us from what source we are in danger. 
We are at peace and all we have to do to remain so is to join 
the nations that think enough of it to ask for it. We simply have 
to convince them that we depend more on justice-than force for 
protection, that we are a Christian nation with rulers who can 
spend millions to better advantage than building air or water 
ships to kill our fellow men and destroy their property. 

Was Senator Lodge not one of the four men from this coun¬ 
try to see that we had a fair deal in ship scrapping? If our 
navy was big enough in 1921 when he offered the findings of 
the Conference with a highly congratulatory speech, what has 
come over his mind to convince him of its inefficiency in 1922? 
Though we are 3,000 miles from an imaginary foe, and France 
has only a line wuthout thickness between her and a lifelong 
enemy, Senator Lodge deplores that only three hundred and 
twenty-five millions are to be given our navy and as much to our 


IS SENATOR LODGE CONSISTENT? 227 

army, while his intense patriotism or his supreme selfishness 
leads him to forget France entirely. He seems not to know 
that other nations are tired of war and ask us to join in a league 
of peace. 

Moreover, Senator Lodge is disingenuous when he says that 
we do not know what France and other nations might say in a 
conference such as Senator Borah proposed. In the first place 
the conference was to be economic. In the second place, most, 
if not all of the nations to be invited are members of the League 
of Nations, and are under treaty obligations to disarm. If Sen¬ 
ator Lodge listened to the speeches made at the Washington 
Conference he knew exactly what France would do. Premier 
Briand, who represented France, said: 

“We have to know that France is not isolated: that she still 
has with her the men of good will and the hearts of all the 
people who have fought with her on the same battlefields. It 
should be known over there (in Germany) that France is not 
alone and I feel quite sure the poisonous propaganda of which I 
have spoken will surely run up against a dead wall that it will 
not be able to go through. ” 

France wants the assurance that she will have the support 
of the nations in time of peace that she had in war. Does Senator 
Lodge know why the United States should stand with France in 
war and abandon her in peace? If she asks what is unreason¬ 
able it is the duty of men like Senator Lodge to use reason to 
effect a change, instead of using the army or navy. If the United 
States had gone into the League of Nations earnestly there is no 
room to doubt that the world would be on a peace basis and the 
trouble between France and Germany have been adjusted long ago. 
The United States, the strongest nation in the world, refused to 
join with other nations and made a separate peace with Germany, 
thus aggravating the trouble. 

France needs good advice; so does Germany, but neither 


228 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


needs to be advised to build more war ships or big guns or 
military forts. They have tried war and found it a failure and 
they are now willing to try something else. Both nations have 
been brought to the verge of ruin, and much of the civilized world 
with them, on account of the foolishness of war, and common 
sense would indicate that we try peace. 

A senator who has spent some time in Europe has the follow¬ 
ing to say of the conditions there: 

“The chief occupation of European governments right now 
is hating one another. The great war has inflamed national ani¬ 
mosities so that there are a hundred causes for war greater and 
more dangerous than the situation from which the war sprung. 
Only the restraining experience and memQry of the last war has 
prevented another and the situation is far worse than a year 
ago, and it is growing continuously worse. 

“Italy hates France as she never hated Austria; France 
hates England as she never did Germany. The little entente 
spends most of its time hating each other.” 

George M. Reynolds, Chairman of the of the Board of 
Directors of the Continental and Commercial National Bank of 
Chicago, spent six months in Europe ^tudying financial prob¬ 
lems. He found conditions in the various countries in a more 
chaotic state than they were a year ago. While in some instances 
the business people were profiting from their industries, the gov¬ 
ernments were verging steadily toward bankruptcy. He said: 

“France is frankly after Germany’s lifeblood. She wants 
every penny Germany can scrape up, the smothering of the 
country as a nation, or if she can’t get either, some kind of a 
guarantee from some other big nation that Germany will pay. 
Everywhere in France the individual says: ‘No matter what 
offer Germany makes we won’t accept it.’ ” 

I am willing to leave it to Senator Lodge or any other big 
navy man to say whether the condition described above is the 




IS SENATOR LODGE CONSISTENT? 229 

result of war or peace. If this situation is the result of war 
among twenty-two nations on one hand and four on the other, 
with over sixteen millions killed and wounded and an expense 
of one hundred and eighty billions of dollars, how many must be 
engaged in a conflict and what will be the expense in money 
and life to make these nations love one another? 

There is entirely too much formality, or otherwise red tape, 
in international dealings. Our rulers should get acquainted 
with one another and not be afraid to say what they mean. It 
has a good effect on those who either by accident or design are 
called to rule over their fellows, to visit other rulers and other 
peoples. They will conclude before they get very far that human 
nature is much alike the world over. Travel had a good influence 
on both Grant and Roosevelt. Not long after Grant took his 
trip around the world he uttered that famous saying, “Let us 
have peace, ’ ’ while Roosevelt thought the Kaiser a pretty decent 
sort of a fellow when he got personally acquainted with him. 
Secretary Weeks cancelled a date with Mr. Fortesque, president 
of the Historical Society of Great Britain, to deliver a lecture 
at West Point on Armistice Day, because Fortesque had said 
something derogatory of the American people. Fortesque said 
afterward that the offensive remarks were made about twelve 
years ago, and he regretted them, because he had come to know 
the American people better. When w'e come to know the aver¬ 
age man, no matter what his nationality, we find him much 
like ourselves. 

A writer in the Literary Digest for August, 1920, says: 

“I have experienced more of the world than falls to the lot 
of most men. I have seen the North and the West and the East 
and the South. I have traveled every continent and have seen 
every great country on the globe. There are none of the world’s 
highways that I have not traversed, few of its byways that I 


230 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


have not trod. I have been intimate with white men, yellow,, 
red, and black. I have met Americans with the soul of a scav¬ 
enger beetle and kinky Africans with hearts of gold; and I have 
been in the penitentiary. From all this I believe I have gained 
some knowledge of life and of men. But one thing I know I 
have learned, and I hold it the best lesson life has taught me: 
that in prison or out, white or black, civilized or primitive, the 
heart of man is everywhere the same.” 

Good men and women have decided to use the church as the 
medium for making nations learn the lessons of peace rather 
than war. The indications are that the peace people generally 
will unite to bring about what was prophesied twenty-six hun¬ 
dred years ago, that the nations should beat their swords into 
plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. About a year 
ago the Detroit Council of Churches unanimously decided to 
request their United States senators to ask for a nation-wide 
referendum on the following question: 

< “Shall the United States join the League of Nations or some 
similar organization, under such reservations or amendments as 
the Senate may agree upon?” 

The Council decided to have a copy sent to every church 
organization in the United States. They passed the following 
among resolutions as the reason for their action: 

“We believe: That war between peoples and nations is a 
curse to mankind, morally and economically, and that it is de¬ 
structive of civilization. 

“That the League of Nations now functioning between 51 
nations, or^some similar organization, is the practical way in 
which to aBolish war, and that it may be made effective and 
vigorous by the co-operation of the United States. 

The World Alliance for International Friendship, composed 
of the best and most influential men and women of the country 
without regard to political parties, have made a general protest 


IS SENATOR LODGE CONSISTENT? 


231 


against war. Among the signers are prominent men and women 
of all political parties. Bishops, judges, college professors, presi¬ 
dents of clubs, editors and prominent ministers are among the 
number. To show that it is non-political I find the names of 
Frank A. Vanderlip, Roger W. Babson, George W. Wiekersham, 
William J. Bryan, Mrs. Harriet P. Laidlaw and Miss Mary F. 
Wooley among the signers. 

More than fifty nations have entered into a league to stand 
together in the cause of peace. Many good people have regarded 
war as one of the necessary evils to which we are obliged to 
submit, but they are now firmly convinced that it is evil and 
know it is unnecessary. Everything now favors peace except the 
propaganda for war that is continually exercised by the army 
and navy. It is a large force and one that is always at work, 
because war is their business, and their trade would go into the 
discard if universal peace should prevail. Some of them may 
be sincere in thinking war is necessary, but it is impossible that 
they should be as earnest in advocating what they know and 
admit is evil, as those who know they are right and expect noth¬ 
ing in way of compensation except the satisfaction that comes 
from doing their duty. 

The right to life is the highest we possess and life should 
be inviolable except by the one who gave it. No compensation 
can be substituted for it. Rockefeller with all his millions could 
not buy the right to take the life of his meanest and poorest 
competitor. Anything that tends to destroy life or shorten it 
is a matter of public concern and an effort is made at once to 
counteract it. While I abhor war as the crime of crimes and 
regard it as worse than murder, arson and robbery combined, 
it does not follow that I must hate in the individual soldier. 
Many soldiers are men of a sense of honor, and it is not the 
soldier, but war, that I detest. I feel sure that the time is at 
hand when a majority of mankind will look on war with the 


232 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


same horror with which they now regard an atrocious murder. 
The addition of numbers only increases the wrong. 

In the past a few men on both sides, as a rule, have caused 
the wars and women had but little to say in this or any other 
public matter. Woman has now become a citizen and should see 
that her rights are respected. Dr. Royal S. Copeland, recently 
elected United States senator from New York, well says: 

“Boys are cannon fodder in time of war. It is heart- 
breaking to see the endless rows of graves in military cemeteries, 
no matter where you go—on the western front, in Italy, in the 
Balkans or on the British frontier—graves are everywhere. 
Many a broken hearted mother is paying the penalty for the last 
war.’ ’ 

What Senator Copeland says is true, and much of the propa¬ 
ganda for war is devoted to making the mother believe that it 
is a high honor to raise a son to be slaughtered on the battlefield. 
It is truly said that wars are fought by boys, suffered by women, 
paid for by posterity and caused by men old enough to know 
better. It might be truthfully added that wars are the result of 
money and glory. The money is made mostly by those who fur¬ 
nish the munitions for killing, and the glory by those who wear 
the uniforms. Women have been furnishing the boys to fight 
the wars all these years, with nothing to say as to the necessity 
which has obliged them to give up an only boy as a sacrifice to 
the god of war. Admitting all that is claimed for the past, that 
wars may have been necessary, that armies and navies may have 
served a useful purpose, isn’t it time in view of what has re¬ 
cently taken place that the good men and women in every nation 
say to their rulers, “You were not only willing but anxious to 
act as our rulers and guardians for money or honor or both. 
We pay you for keeping us safe in public affairs and we have a 
right to hold you responsible for keeping the peace. If you and 



IS SENATOR LODGE CONSISTENT? 233 

the rulers of other countries are not good enough or wise enough 
to keep from quarreling, you must do your own fighting. You 
may choose your own methods of combat. If you cannot settle 
your trouble peaceably, and will not do so forcibly, you must 
give way to more competent rulers, but you must excuse those 
who pay you from taking any part in human butchery. If this 
were done would there be any more wars? Not as long as the 
world stands. As Cowper said more than a hundred and fifty 
years ago, “War is a game which, were the subjects wise, kings 
would not play at. ’ ’ 

Under a League of Nations none would have any inclination 
to prepare for war because all have gone on a peace basis. The 
nations might have agreed to abolish war long ago had it not 
been for Germany. Even Russia and the United States were 
not only willing but anxious twenty-five years ago to substitute 
peace for war. The late conflict opened eyes that were blind to 
the wickedness and danger of war. Most of the nations promptly 
became members of the League, believing a general membership 
the only way to secure universal peace. Unless men lose their 
reason and respect for their ablest leaders it will not be long 
until every nation is willing to join with others and depend on 
the world for justice rather than take the hazards and dangers 
of war. 

Before the League was formed every nation was a law unto 
itself. If a strong nation like Germany saw fit to make munitions 
at the Krupp works and to buy from other countries, always will¬ 
ing to sell, that was her own business and no nation had any 
right to ask what she was preparing for. Of course, she was 
careful to let it be known that she, like all others, was simply 
preparing for a reasonable self defense. The only way to offset 
a strong nation was for a number of weaker ones to form a 


234 


THE 'LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


fighting league, as they did in 1914, and the result was a world 
war. 

Under the old system Germany regarded a treaty as a scrap 
of paper when it stood in her way. As war sets aside all moral 

obligations, why was Germany under any necessity to observe a 
treaty made in time of peace 1 A declaration of war breaks any 
civil contract, and the worst thing Germany did was, not to break 
the treaty with Belgium, but to engage in war. Under a League 
in which the world is interested, breaking a treaty would be a 
serious proposition because war is no longer recognized and the 
nation breaking a treaty would be regarded as an Esau among 
nations, and would face the opposition of the world. All would 
find peace so much better than war that they would gladly con¬ 
form to the reasonable requirements. 




CHAPTER XII. 


Japan Not an Enemy of the United States. 

"Friendship is the only thing in the world concern¬ 
ing the usefulness of which all mankind are agreed." 

—'Cicero. 

Alarmists and jingoes always want some nation with which 
they can threaten us. They aim to keep the people thinking they 
will be attacked unless they have an adequate army and navy. 
For years Germany was the bugbear of nations and no doubt a 
dangerous element in national affairs as long as nations stood 
alone, each impoverishing itself to maintain a military race with 
her. There was no League of Nations, but if one nation feared 
trouble with another and felt doubtful of the result of an armed 
conflict, she had no hesitancy in having an understanding or 
secret treaty with another to help her. Even since the late war 
we have it on the word of a prominent Russian that Russia had 
made overtures to Turkey looking toward an alliance in case 
Turkey entered into a war. 'The fact we have been feeding mil¬ 
lions of Russians to keep them from starving seemed to make 
no difference with the rulers. They had no money to be used 
for the millions who were starving at their own doors, but they 
had gold to let other nations have to engage in war. A League 
of Nations in which the five leading nations would join in good 
faith would put a stop to all this. The military might then pike 
a back seat for it would no longer control the world. 

I have intimated that overtures have been made to Japan, 
presumably by military men, to take Germany’s place as a threat¬ 
ening power to afford other nations an excuse for being prepared 


236 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


to fight. I do not know by whom the proposition was made, but 
there is no doubt that it was made and not by those who desire 
the peace of the world. It was not necessary to say to Japan 
or any other nation, “We want you to fight.” All we need is 
to have the young men drill, learn to shoot and organize into 
companies for patriotic purposes. It may even be denied that 
there is any militarism about it; that it is done simply for the 
good of the young men, and, if by the remotest chance they 
should be called on for self defense, they will find their early 
training valuable. That an effort was made to have Japan take 
Germany’s place is clear from an address made in Pittsburgh 
before the World’s Christian Conference in November, 1919. 
The following extract is from the address of Dr. Dan jo Ebina 
of Tokio : 

“lam sorry to say that some representative American states¬ 
men have been driving Japan more and more to Prussianism. 
They have been giving Japanese militarists many plausible rea¬ 
sons for not only maintaining the present army and navy but 
for increasing them. They know how to utilize the Democratic 
movement in Japan for universal military training, in order to 
make the whole population of fifty million people in one com¬ 
pact army. The pressure that Japan cannot resist must not be 
the power of the army and navy, but must be the power of a 
higher kind. It must come from a higher sphere. Is not the 
League of Nations for the welfare, not only of each individual 
nation but for the whole of humanity ? It requires the broader 
sentiment, the nobler aspiration, the stronger faith in reason, 
the more intense love for the truth and the cleaner consciousness 
of the indwelling spirit of God in humanity.” 

The late Baron Kato, premier of Japan, was regarded as a 
man of good sense who had the best interests of his country at 
heart. He was a good friend of the United States and those 
who understood the situation did not anticipate any trouble as 
long as such men are in charge. Baron Kato died a few days 


JAPAN NOT AN ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES 237 

before Japan suffered the greatest natural disaster in the history 
of the world. He had been an admiral in his earlier years, and, 
though it is hard for a man to get away from the military idea 
when it has once taken hold of him, he had the good sense to 
realize that the greatness of Japan must come along the lines of 
cooperation with other nations rather than by the older methods 
of military imperialism. 

Count Yamamoto succeeded Baron Kato as Prime Minister 
of Japan, and soon afterward the terrible earthquake and fire 
took place. Happily nothing was needed to strengthen the 
friendly feeling between this country and Japan, but if it were, 
the alactrity with which the United States supplied aid to the 
suffering people of Japan furnished it. In a message to Secretary 
Hughes the Premier expresses the heartfelt thanks of himself 
and his people for the noble manifestation of a sincere and 
generous spirit. He says that this precious gift of American 
sympathy cannot but serve the peace of the world in drawing 
still closer the bonds of friendship and trust between the two 
countries. A Japanese resident of New York, Izuzo Ijime, writes 
a, letter to the New York Times from which I make the following 
extract: 

“Few noble deeds are comparable to the one being done by 
the American people for the stricken people of Nippon. Indeed, 
compared with the Japanese tragedy, the late World War was 
a far greater tragedy, perhaps the greatest tragedy on earth man 
ever witnessed. But that great tragedy was one which could 
have been avoided if we had only willed so. Nay, if we, all of us 
on earth, regardless of nationality, had had, and were brave 
enough to actualize, the noble spirit which is being shown by the 
American people at this moment, there could have been no World 
War from which millions of people are still suffering.” 

Nations are naturally like individuals because they are made 
up of individuals. Both are much more influenced for peace by 


238 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


kindness than by a show of power and threats of force. The 
kindness shown Japan during her recent affliction will have a 
much greater influence for peace between the two nations than 
all the braggadocio of military men that we are now ready to 
fight. Commenting on the aid from different countries in Japan’s 
distress the Nichi Nichi, a leading Tokyo newspaper, says: 

“What is most remarkable is the attitude shown by the 
Americans. They have come out like the Americans of old— 
stupendous in scale and enterprise and marvelously to the point 
in doing rescue work. They have been efficient, sympathetic and 
generous in giving, and forgetful of anything else in their zeal 
to help helpless sufferers.” 

That our newspapers are not indifferent to the way in which 
Japan has met her international obligations I have but to quote 
from a late editorial in the Pittsburgh Post: 

“The steadiness with which Japan, regarded by some as 
wholly for war, has been moving in the direction of peace and 
justice cannot well be ignored. It has been represented that she 
would never give up Shan-tung without a fight. But she with¬ 
drew promptly, in fulfillment of a promise she had made to Presi¬ 
dent Wilson. It had been broadcast that she never would con¬ 
sent to arms reduction. But she did, and now is trying to revive 
interest in the project when others are apparently neglecting it.” 

It seems that some influential magazines and papers have no 
desire but to irritate Japan, and drive her into war when she is 
doing her full share for peace. Recently David Starr Jordan 
of California had occasion to criticise an article on Japan in the 
Atlantic Monthly. It is unnecessary to say that Dr. Jordan is 
one of the ablest and most scholarly men of the world. Follow- 
is his criticism: 

“Without questioning a single statement of this well-informed 
author, I think that the publication of this article, with its im¬ 
plication of bad faith on the part of Japan, is most unfortunate. 



JAPAN NOT AN ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES 239 

This discussion, with similar statements from less competent 
authority, has tended to revive the feeling of suspicion toward 
Japan—for the time allayed by the Washington Conference— 
and the notorious sequence of suspicion is fear, hate, and open 
move toward war. There are but two powers in the Pacific and 
in each the war authorities speak of the other as ‘the enemy’— 
impersonally, of course, but there is no other enemy to be con¬ 
sidered. Our habit of discussing ‘the enemy’ has been the main 
support of militarism since Russia abandoned the unpleasant 
role. 

“This much is clear. The letter and spirit of the Washing¬ 
ton Conference has been more fully respected in Japan than 
anywhere else. Japan, as a nation, has no longings for the 
Prilippines—would not and could not take them even as a gift; 
if she wastes money in fortifying her own off shore islands, it 
is her business, not ours. Her people as a whole crave the closest 
friendship with the United States; on both sides considerate 
treatment and a civil tongue in the foreign office are worth more 
more than battleships-, for us to allow international questions to 
be settled by local referendum is a dangerous policy; nations 
like nervous dogs fly up after ill-considered barking, and. finally, 
war. War in the Pacific for any cause would be a world calamity 
of the first magnitude. To us there could be but one catastrophe 
more awful than war with Japan, and that would be war with 
Great Britain. 

“Every dollar spent sincerely for peace counts more for 
security than a thousand spent on munitions. There will be no 
war in the Pacific unless we force it.” , 

I find the following good sense in the Philadelphia Public 
Ledger: 

“The navy has just finished a job more difficult and more 
important than winning a battle on the high seas. The job was 
meeting and overcoming the food emergency in devastated Japan. 
These fighting ships have sunk without a trace the gloomy pre¬ 
dictions of Far Eastern alarmists. Where, now, is the soap-box 
statesman who predicted that our fleets in the Pacific would be 
needed to keep the Japanese from invading our shores? Our 
ships have subjugated Japan, but with the bombardment of food 


240 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


and medicine. Our bluejackets have walked the streets of Tokio 
and Yokohama, but on errands of mercy. The man who talks of 
‘the yellow peril’ in the future will be a fool as well as a liar.” 

As further proof that the war spirit is dying out in Japan 
I have only to say that the school histories of that country have 
undergone a complete change in spite of American jingoes. Any¬ 
thing that could be classed as an incentive to militarism has been 
elminated, and school children are sensibly taught about foreign 
lands of which the people are friendly. Characters like Wash- 
inton and Lincoln, who are regarded as preeminently men of 
peace, are praised in the new books. Raita Fujiyama, president 
of the Chamber of Commerce in Japan, is authority for the state¬ 
ment that the military spirit is dying out in that country. On 
the contrary a strong effort is being made in this country to 
make our school books more patriotic and hence more war-like 
at the expense of truthfulness. 

The latest we have from Japan is from the well-known 
Washington correspondent, William Philip Simms, under date 
of June 23, 1923. He puts it under the expressive head of 
“Decorations That Drip With Blood.” I give extracts from his 
article: 

“Maybe we’re not going to be forced into a war with Japan, 
after all. To the tune of bloody noses and broken heads, students 
of Japans’ biggest university have just dealt militarism in that 
country a mighty significant blow. 

“The trouble was at Waseda University, Tokio, founded by 
the great Marquis Okuma. With nearly 10,000 students on its 
rolls, it is considerably bigger than the five imperial universities 
of Japan put together. 

“Some time ago the Japanese military clique laid careful 
plans to break into the great universities. They wanted to catch 
’em young. The scheme was to form ‘Military Study Societies r 
to get students interested in the army and navy and, from time to 
time, have military men address them on what a fine old institu¬ 
tion war is. 


JAPAN NOT AN ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES 241 

( t ^ le ^ a y ^ le society was to be formally launched at 
Waseda with the sanction of Dr. Takada, the prexy, many nota¬ 
bles from the army and navy were invited to speak. General 
bhirakawa, vice minister of war; Generals Nakashima and Ishi- 
xmtsu, Imperial Guard commanders; Admiral Furukawa, from 
the navy office, and Admiral Tsuneda, of the naval general staff 
were among those listed. 

The trouble started the moment the officials alighted from 
the war office automobiles. ‘Down with Militarism!” was on 
the banner w r hich greeted them at the entrance to the university. 

“‘Behold the human butchers!’ somebody yelled as the 
officers filed in. 

Inside, the hall was packed. A professor on the platform 
rose to state the aims of the Society. 

“ ‘That’s not the expression of the student mind!’ someone 
yelled, and loud applause greeted the sally. 

“Professor Aoyagi, of the university faculty and president 
of the Society, got up. 

“ *1-’ he began, but a student cut him short and finished 

the sentence for him—‘am a militarist.’ 

“Never had such a thing happened in such a place and in 
such a presence in all the history of Japan. The generals and 
admirals on the stage were furious. 

“Dr. Takada, president of the university, who had been 
fidgeting in his seat for some time, finally sprang up, his face 
crimson with rage. Unheeding the constant interruptions which 
even he could not prevent, he introduced the vice minister of war. 

“ ‘Blood is dripping from the very decorations he wears!’ 
someone shouted as the vice minister came forward to read an 
address from the minister of war himself. 

“Heckled, their voices drowned by the students singing, 
the speakers had to quit and the meeting broke up in confusion.” 

While I do not favor anything that seems like mutiny in 
the student mind, the efforts to interest them in the army and 
navy justified all reasonable opposition. The boys of Japan, 
like those of the United States are tired of being made “food 
for powder,” and no reasonable man can object to their regard¬ 
ing wmr as the crime of crimes made semi-respectable for the 



242 


the. league of nations 


reason that the government engages in it on the plea of necessity. 

I admit, and the students of Japan are no doubt ready to grant, 
that any nation when attacked ought to fight rather than sur¬ 
render, if fighting is likely to better the situation instead of 
making it worse. But the League of Nations is for the purpose 
of preventing the necessity of any nation’s impoverishing itself 
by engaging in a bloody conflict with another. All should be 
united in a common League for protection. 

That American students, like those of Japan, are tired of 
fighting the wars that others make is evident from the action they 
have taken. A dispatch dated Indianapolis, January 1, 1924, 
reads as follows: 

“An overwhelming expression in favor of the League of 
Nations and the world court of international justice as the best 
means of preventing war was voiced today in the final sessions 
of the international convention of the Student Volunteer Move¬ 
ment, in which more than 7,000 student delegates from 1,000 
schools and colleges in the United States and Canada formally 
approved a statement embodying the sentiment of the gathering. 

“ ‘We believe that war is un-Christian and that the League 
of Nations is the best means of preventing it, but we would re¬ 
sort to war in case an unavoidable dispute had been referred to 
the League or world court without successful settlement. ’ 

The viewpoint was selected by the convention from four 
presented by student speakers, embodying every shade of opinion 
from an endorsement of preparedness to approval of non- 
resistance and a refusal to ‘sanction or participate directly in 
any future war. ’ ’’ 

Some of these students evidently believe that Christianity 
should get back to what it was in early days. As the Rev. Harry 
Emerson Fosdick said in a sermon last Armistice Day: 

“When one turns from the noisy corner to the quiet place, 
one finds another conviction growing: war is untterly unchris¬ 
tian; it cannot be reconciled with the spirit of Jesus. We may 



243 


JAPAN NOT AN ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES 

be Christians or we may believe in and practice war, but we 
cannot do both. Of course, the early church thought that. For 
centuries Christians took their stand faithfully against war and, 
living as they did under an imperialistic government, where 
they could not affect public policy, they expressed their loyalty 
to Christ by refusing military service in the Roman army. As a 
recent writer puts it, The early Christian church was the first 
peace society.’ According to Justin Martyr the spirit of war 
and the spirit of Jesus are absolutely irreconcilable. According 
to Tertullian a soldier who becomes a Christian should leave 
the army at once. According to Cyprian war is nothing but 
wholesale murder. Writers like Arnobius and Lactantius de¬ 
nounce w r ar roundly. And not only is it true that between 50 
and 170 A. D. no Christian soldier is known to have existed, 
but innumerable instances are indicated where Christians threw 
down their arms and took the death of traitors, simply saying, 
'I am a Christian, and therefore I cannot fight.’ ’ 5 

To the surprise of militarists and some warlike newspaper 
proprietors, the meeting developed a very pacific feeling among 
those who are attending our colleges and universities. It is but 
natural and should cause no surprise to find that the young man 
is against war and in favor of the surest and quickest way to 
abolish it. If peace prevails he has reason to expect many years 
of usefulness and happiness, and I know of no reason but neces¬ 
sity why he should offer himself as a victim to the bloody demon 
of war. The necessity may have existed at one time to cause him 
to forsake the pleasant and safe pursuits of peace to undergo 
the hardships of a soldier’s life, perhaps to spend his days as a 
cripple or leave his bones on some battlefield, but if there was 
such a time it was not when “war was abhorrent to the world ’ 
and other nations asked us to join them in a demand for universal 
peace. Nobody knows this better than the students, and, as they 
have been among the first to enlist, we ought to allow them to 
think. If any one, unfettered by improper considerations, takes 
time to think he will conclude that war is the most wicked thing 


244 THE LEAGUE OE NATIONS 

in the world and that sensible citizens will abolish it as soon 
as possible. 

It will no doubt cause the President, who is Commander in 
Chief of all the military forces of the United States, Secretary 
Weeks, of War, Secretary Denby of the Navy, and other mili¬ 
tarists to have a chill when they learn that only three hundred 
of the students were in favor of keeping peace by the old method 
of preparing for war, while five hundred voted for the following 
resolution offered by Allan A. Hunter of the Union Theological 
Seminary of New York: 

“We believe that war is an utter denial of Jesus’ way of 
life, ineffective as a means of settling differences between nations. 
Therefore, we declare our resolve not to sanction or participate 
directly in any future war.” 

As I have already said, the Army and Navy and their friends 
never lose sight of the propaganda necessary to keep Congress 
and the public in favor of preparing for war. I find that Gen. 
John Ross Delafield denounced the students’ meeting in Indian¬ 
apolis by telegraphing the chairman as soon as he heard that 
the students have a mind of their own and dared to speak. Of 
course General Delafield is for peace all over, if we let him do the 
talking. It is what men do rather than what they say that 
counts. One of the papers that believe in bringing peace by 
preparing for war has an editorial on the student’s meeting, of 
which this is an extract: 

“The record of American colleges in all the wars in which 
this nation has participated has been such as to reflect the high¬ 
est credit Upon our higher institutions of learning and upon the 
nation itself. College students and young college graduates have 
been among the first to enlist, and the most eager to respond to 
the call of the country. 

“Within recent years, however, there has developed in cer¬ 
tain colleges and universities a well defined pacifist movement 


JAPAN NOT AN ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES 245 

of which the discussion of means to outlaw war at a student 
convention is doubtless a part. It is one of the many badly 
conceived notions of a few misdirected pacifists, who, still dis¬ 
satisfied with their work of obstruction during the war, are seek¬ 
ing to spread a philosophy damaging alike to wholesome national¬ 
ism and to the cause of peace. College students who permit them¬ 
selves to become parties to their schemes will be few and far 
between, unless college thinking has changed radically within 
the last half dozen years.’’ 

This paper, like all who favor peace by preparing for war, 
doesn’t seem to know or at least recognize the fact that a great 
change has taken place in college as other thinking in recent 
years. When all the w r orld that has had any chance asks for 
peace, except the politicians of our own nation, we need not 
wonder that pacifists have become very common and that a great 
change has taken place. When necessary the college student 
was among the first to recognize the necessity of being a soldier, 
even at the expense of comfort and life itself, but when not 
necessary he cannot help being a pacifist, for he is at least sensi¬ 
ble enough to know that preparing for war can never bring peace. 

It would be surprising if, of a thousand schools and colleges 
represented at the students’ meeting at Indianapolis, not more 
than one head should complain that the students were opposed 
to war: that they didn’t favor preparing for it under the usual 
plea of self defense or for the purpose of aggression. They 
realize that the effect is just the same and the expense the same 
for one as the other. It is the more remarkable w T hen we consider 
that the average college president is exempt from war on account 
(oif ,his age. All he had to do in in the past was to say to his 
students when war was threatened, “Now show your patriotism 
and offer yourselves as living sacrifices on the bloody field. If 
you leave your bones to bleach on the battlefield you will have 
the satisfaction of knowing that you died in a worthy cause,” etc. 
Instead it seems that the students have come to think that the 


246 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


older men should do the fighting for two reasons: they do not 
have so long to live and they should wear the shoes they make. 

There may be others, but I have heard but one complaint 
regarding the students and the religious circles. Dr. John M- 
Thomas, at the head of State College, Pa., according to a recent 
dispatch, evidently believes in preparing for war rather than 
peace. The dispatch reads: 

“State College, Jan. 29.—A protest against the wave of 
pacifism that is sweeping the country, especially in religious 
circles was made here tonight by Dr. Thomas in his farewell ad¬ 
dress to the mid^winter graduating class of 86 men and women.” 

Does Dr. Thomas prefer to join forces with the militarists 
in favor of preparing to fight, rather than with the religious 
forces that think it high time that we prepare for peace instead 
of war ? Does not Dr. Thomas know that a wave of pacifism has 
swept over the world since the war that was to end war and 
when more than fifty nations agreed to war no more? Dr.. 
Thomas quotes Milton’s definition of a complete education as 
one which fits a man to perform properly all the offices, both 
public and private, of peace and war. Milton has been dead 
two hundred and fifty years and it is to be hoped that the world 
has made some progress since his demise. Moreover, Dr. Thomas, 
following the lead of all military men, will claim that prepara¬ 
tion to fight is necessary, but Milton says that necessity is the 
tyrant’s plea. 

The very uniform seems to indicate war. Put a man in dress 
resplendent with tinsel and he seems to think himself of much 
greater importance than the same man in the costume of the 
ordinary citizen. Never was a clearer demonstration of this than 
is found in the Literary Digest of November 24, 1923. It gives 
side by side two pictures of Ludendorf, one in uniform and the 
other in citizen’s dress. One would never suspect that the pic¬ 
tures are of the same man. The one in ordinary dress looks like 


JAPAN NOT AN ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES 247 

a good natured man; the other has the appearance of one who is 
haughty, owns the earth and like the Kaiser, thinks only of me 
und Gott. 

As Dr. Jordan well says in correcting the Atlantic Monthly 
article, there will be no war in the Pacific unless we force it. 
Everything indicates that we might be at peace perpetually, if 
it were not for the propaganda for war that is continually car¬ 
ried on by our army and navy from the Commander in Chief 
down. At a meeting held since the first of the year in 'New York 
representatives were present from both Japan and China, They 
pledged the friendship of their respective nations to each other 
and to the United States: 

Curses, like chickens, are said to come home to roost, and 
we may he sowing dragons’ teeth when we prepare for war. I 
deny that we are setting an example of peace to the millions 
across the seas or even to the millions of our own. Every dollar 
of the millions spent on war by the Kaiser was for self defense, 
if we take his word and that of his advisers, and the world 
regards the word of military men as much the same the world 
over. They are animated by money arid glory and a false patriot¬ 
ism, but not by humanity. The danger to civilization by setting 
a had example has often been pointed out, hut never better than 
by Frazier Hunt in his book, “The Rising Temper of the East.” 
Mr. Hunt has spent considerable time among the peoples of 
whom he writes and he evidently knows what he says. I give 
a short extract from his 250 pages: 

“The white man’s domination of the billion men of the 
East by force must cease. No longer can our culture and our 
civilization he carried backward to ancient peoples on the vehicle 
of force. If there is a ‘white man’s burden’ it must in the future 
be borne on other shoulders than those that carry bayonets. 

“Everywhere throughout the East there are danger signals 
flashing their warning to the conquering West. The ruling, the 


248 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


domineering, the looting must cease. If the West were wise it 
would shift its course while still there is time. If it blindly 
stumbles on, ignoring these danger signals, the day will soon 
come when the work and the profits of four hundred years will 
be swept away. 

“'To ninety per cent of the people of America and Europe 
the idea of a violent repudiation of white mastery by the black, 
brown and yellow men of the East is still a wild phantasy. But 
it is no longer a wild phantasy to me—for I have seen Gandhi 
and myself felt the rising temper of Asia.” 

After describing the way in which they have been divided 
heretofore the writer says it is vastly different now. He says 
“the Mahommedans and Hindus.have buried their ancient 
grudges and the leaders of seventy million Mahommedans and 
two hundred millions Hindus are at last working hand in glove.” 

He uses the two hundred and fifty pages in describing what 
he saw of the nations that will oppose us unless we speedily 
change our policy. He says there are many things the East can 
learn from us, but they do not propose that these things shall be 
shoved down their throats with bayonets. 

“The sum of the whole matter is this, that our civilization 
cannot survive materially unless it is redeemed spiritually. It 
can be saved only by becoming permeated with the spirit of 
Christ and being made free and happy by the practices which 
spring out of that spirit. Only thus can discontent be driven out 
and all the shadows lifted from the road ahead. 

“Here is the final challenge to ou churches, to our political 
organizations, and to our capitalists—to every one who fears 
God or loves his country. Shall we not all earnestly cooperate 
to bring in the new day?” 


CHAPTER XIII. 


Some Still Depend on Force and Fear. 

“Take away the sword, states can be saved without it." 

—Lord Lytton. 

In spite of the fact that the Commander in Chief of the 
army and navy declared some time ago that war is abhorrent 
to the world; that five of the strongest nations agreed to scrap 
a part of their battleships and build no more for ten years; 
that the ablest men and women of the world have declared 
peace to be the natural condition of the human family; that war 
has always lived on suspicion, hate and fear; that more than 
fifty nations have said by treaties that they want no more war; 
that generations to come will suffer morally and financially from 
the last great conflict, there are still those who believe in force 
and fear rather than justice and good will to maintain the 
governments of the world. 

The same assertions that have been heard from time imme¬ 
morial are still the stock in trade of those who believe in protec¬ 
tion that comes from scaring the enemy by a show of physical 
strength. Those who advocate armies and navies in this age 
as a protection have about as substantial a basis for their fears 
as the late Charles A. Dana had for his belief in ghosts. He 
once inquired of a friend whether he believed in ghosts. On 
receiving a negative answer, he said: “Neither do I, but I’ve been 
afraid of them for sixty years.” 

The nation that deals justly has as little to fear from others 
as Dana had from ghosts. Such a feeling is especially prepos- 


250 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


terous when everybody, except the few who are financially in¬ 
terested want peace. If any such feeling exists, it must be born 
of suspicion, fear, ignorance or self-interest. It may be that we 
have a considerable number who share the feelings of Admiral 
Trupple of the German Baltic fleet who, according to the Boston 
Traveler , said: “Universal peace will never be, for then what 
would become of my job?” There may be some who are influ¬ 
enced for war bv the considerations intimated by Trupple, but 
we have none who are willing to accept the stigma of advocating 
war for the sake of conquest, ambition or money. They do not 
want to acknowledge fear as the motive for preparation so they 
put it on the ground of a reasonable self-defense, a different form 
of expression which in effect means the same thing. Look at 
the subject from any angle presented and fear lies at the basis 
of all preparation for self-defense. Where there is no fear of 
danger there is no thought of going to great expense to prepare 
against it. 

Fear is considered one of the lowest of human motives. Mrs. 
Sigourney calls fear the white-lipped sire of subterfuge and 
treachery, while Mrs. Jamison says that in morals what begins 
in fear usually ends in wickedness; in religion what begins in 
fear usually ends in fanaticism. She says that fear, either as a 
principle or a motive, is the beginning of all evil. One of 
America’s most noted orators says that fear is a dagger with 
which hypocrisy assassinates the soul, while the senator-elect 
from New York calls fear the curse of all existence, the bane of 
both human and animal life. 

The ease with which military men seem to find their way into 
newspapers and magazines to advocate the doctrine of fear under 
the name of self-defense without any antidote, gives rise to the 
opinion that some editors are friendly to war, or they would not 
pay for its propagation. Even the humorists are taking note 


SOME STIL/L DEPEND ON FORCE AND FEAR 


251 


of it. Among the humorous items in a recent paper was the fol¬ 
lowing: “What are you going to make of your son?” The reply 
was: “I think I’ll teach him to be a writer, but I have not de¬ 
cided whether to send him to the army or the navy.” It takes 
but a cursory examination of some of our papers and magazines 
to find articles signed by admirals, rear admirals, generals or 
somebody who is spreading the propaganda for a larger army 
or navy, though this is supposed to be an age of peace and this 
nation is sending missionaries to every benighted land on earth 
Very often some military man is invited to make an address from 
the rostrum to tell the people, and especially the young men y 
that we are in great danger unless we prepare for self-defense. 

In the December, 1922, number of Current Literature are two 
articles, one clamoring for a larger army and the other for a 
larger navy. The first is written by Lieutenant Herbert B. 
Mayer, under the title, “America Again Defenseless.” If any¬ 
thing further is needed to convince any thinking being that we 
ought to have something better than the army and navy to de¬ 
pend on for safety these articles furnish it. 

The first sentence in Lieutenant Mayer’s article is, “The 
United States is less prepared for war than she wqs in 1914.” 
He laments this very much, though to be better prepared for 
wiar now than in 1914 would be an insult to every man and 
woman who believes in peace. The important question is not 
whether we are better prepared for war, but are we better pre¬ 
pared for peace ? We ought to be and it is to be hoped that we 
are. Everybody should know that the world has been on a war 
basis ever since the beginning of history; that it has been a 
cruel and expensive failure, and the nations want to try peace 
and see whether it will not be better than war in practice as well 
as in theory. 

Lieutenant Mayer complains bitterly of the false economy 
of Chairman Anthony who cut down the number of men in the 


252 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


army and saved the country, what to Lieutenant Mayer is the 
bagatelle of only $34,500,000, or enough to build 1,000 miles of 
good roads, something we need more than soldiers. The writer 
calls it the economy of unpreparedness and quotes the Army and 
Navy Journal to show that Congress is wrong. Quoting the 
Army and Navy Journal to prove anything to bolster up war is 
like asking the devil whether he is as bad as generally believed. 

Lieutenant Mayer tells a lot of truth in winding up his 
article. He says a commission in the army is most desirable, a 
high honor. It means employment in the service one loves. It 
means comradeship, travel, adventure and hard work. He says 
it means a great deal. 

The real duties of a soldier’s life are carefully avoided by 
Lieutenant Mayer. He mentions travel, # adventure, comrade¬ 
ship and everything that makes a soldier’s life joyful. The only 
reason, however, that this nation or any other gives for main¬ 
taining soldiers is that of fear or, as the military man puts it, 
for self defense. The nation that keeps soldiers trained to kill 
is afraid of its neighbors and thinks it necessary to spend money 
lavishly on its army and navy to hire those who are willing to 
take life and destroy property if somebody higher up gives the 
order. The good soldier does what he is commanded to do 
without question as to whether it is right or wrong. If the com¬ 
mand never comes for the one who has enlisted to do a soldier’s 
duty, then he may have all that makes a soldier’s life enjoyable, 
if he is an officer. Even the officers, all but one, are obliged to 
obey orders, but are no£ so subordinate as the privates either in 
army or navy. If those higher up think a little bloodletting 
will be good for the body politic and give orders, then all below 
must obey, even if be to commit what in civil life would be the 
most flagrant crime. Have I not stated the case correctly? 


The state is supposed to be wiser and better than the indi- 


SOME STIDL DEPEND ON FORCE AND FEAR 


253 


vidual. The individual may be weak but the state is strong. 
The individual may get drunk and not be responsible for his acts, 
but the state is always sober. The individual may be tempted, 
but the state is supposed to be beyond all temptation. Taking 
admitted facts there are some who cannot understand that what 
is the highest crime when done by the individual should be con¬ 
sidered worthy of honor and glory when done by the state. 

The other article to which I refer is written by Admiral 
R. E. Coontz, who is chief of naval operations for the United 
States. In a late report he laments that it takes seven years to 
build fifty submarines and then have a majority of them un¬ 
satisfactory. I might ask what is wanted of so many submarines 
when their use was restricted by the Washington Conference? 
He writes under the head, “The Navy as a Protective In vest¬ 
ment/’ He makes no explanation of the fact that this country 
appropriated more money for military purposes last year than 
any other, nor does he tell why this is the only country, though 
pretending to be for peace, that has increased its army since the 
war. He uses the term adequate frequently and insists that we 
should have, what he laments we do not possess, an adequate 
navy. He vouchsafes the information that almost big enough is 
worthless, and that there may be no mistake about it, he puts the 
words in italics. He says that because Germany's navy was not 
adequate she lost control of the seas, lost her colonies and her 
trade. Because her navy was almost big enough he says that it 
was a wild-cat investment and paid no dividends on the invest¬ 
ment. 

According to Admiral Coontz, if Germany had built or 
bought a few more dreadnaughts, destroyers, battleships, air 
ships and submarines, she would have had an adequate navy and 
should have won the war, and been collecting such indemnities as 
she might see fit from twenty-two nations instead of playing the 


254 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


baby act and pleading inability to pay the damages in the court 
of her own choosing. If we admit Admiral Coontz’s premises 
there is no dodging the conclusions. He will agree that it would 
have been a great calamity for Germany to have been victorious. 
He must admit that it was a good thing that Germany did not 
possess an adequate navy. Those who oppose war as only wicked 
go a little further than Admiral Coontz. They insist that the 
world would be far better off in every way if there were no 
navies, simply a police force to look after criminals; the good 
will take care of themselves. 

It is generally conceded that had the United States stayed 
out of the World War, Germany would have been successful, a 
result not wished by Admiral Coontz nor any of the Allies. Had 
Germany taken a little different course with the United States, 
we would have had no excuse under the rules of war for inter¬ 
fering. In that case, especially if she had possessed an adequate 
navy, as Admiral Coontz argues she should have had, Germany 
ivould have fixed the war indemnities on twenty-two nations, 
and when w T e remember that she required France in 1871 to pay 
a billion dollars and give up Alsace-Lorrain we can imagine that 
she would not have been over-modest in her demands. 

Will Admiral Coontz or any other man say that any nation’s 
success or failure should depend on contingencies rather on the 
goodness, industry and intelligence of its citizens? John W. 
Daniels of the Richmond Examiner said on the 3rd of July, 1863, 
that the Confederacy was within a stone’s throw of peace. He 
was perhaps right, for the result may have depended on the 
battle of Gettysburg and that may have been determined by a 
single order, given without a moment’s deliberation. If Lee 
had won, throwing Washington, Philadelphia and New York 
open to his army, with the vitals of the Confederacy unharmed, 


SOME STILL DEPEND ON FORCE AND FEAR 255 

it might have resulted in giving the Southern States the victory. 
To say the least it is too haphazard to leave any important ques¬ 
tion to the contingencies of war. Those who think an overruling 
power has anything to do with it should read what Reverend 
Kennedy has to say in another chapter. Admiral Coontz winds 
up his article by saying that it is a waste of money to maintain 
a navy insufficient for national protection. As we always have 
had such a navy, according to admirals, it follows that we have 
wasted a lot of money. 


Major General Robert Lee Bullard is one who thinks war 
is imminent and in an address to young men recently he used 
the war scare as follows: 


“We are no more prepared for the contingency of war than 
we were when we started in the World War. That is why we 
are asking you to do something; to bear your part in case of need. 
And you who read the newspapers can see that there is a threat 
of war. almost as serious now as when General Wood started the 
Plattsburg camp two years before the great war. 

“People, churches, governments all over the world are exer¬ 
cising every effort to prevent war, and they are not able to do it. 
For that reason it is especially necessary that the young men 
take training that, they might become good regular soldiers by 
being citizen soldiers now.” 


Unfortunately General Bullard does not tell the young men 
whom they should have to fear, though he pretends to know that 
w r e are sure to have war. According to the General nobody wants 
war and while the people, churches, and governments all over 
the civilized world are exercising every effort to prevent it, still 
it is coming. What everybody wants they usually get and what 
they do not want they are not obliged to have; but it seems 
different with war. Nobody wants it yet we are sure to have it. 


256 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


I forgot that the General did not mention the military as trying 
to prevent it. As military men usually make the wars I confess 
to some stupidity in not noticing sooner that General Bullard 
had omitted them as trying to prevent war. If the military of 
this nation will kill only the military of some other nation it wdll 
be some improvement over the ordinary method of killing the 
innocent and destroying their property and making them pay 
for it all. 

All this talk of war is the purest buncombe and designed 
only to reconcile us to appropriating millions more for war pur¬ 
poses than any other nation. There are hatred, hypocrisy, debt, 
cripples, hard times and crime in every land but one does not 
have to be intelligent to know that most of these troubles were 
caused by war, and as the people have as much sense as a burnt 
child, they want no more of it. It takes money to make war, a 
lot of it, and no nation, not excepting our own, has money to fool 
away in killing and destroying. Germany cannot pay what 
France asks without impoverishing herself for a century, and 
she owes other countries as well as France. The United States 
sent her a bill for nearly a billion and a half a few days ago 
which she will never pay. 

France claims $33, 000,000,000 as an indemnity from Ger¬ 
many, the interest of which as four per cent amounts to three 
and a half millions every day for 360 days of the year. France 
is now heavily in debt and we have it on no less an authority 
than President Poincare and no older than February, 1924, that 
she must borrow 30,000,000,000 francs to restore war devastated 
regions and for current expenses. Has war paid France or Ger¬ 
many or any other nation ? Any one who desires to know what 


257 


SOME STILL. DEPEND ON FORCE AND FEAR 

foreign nations owe us can add two years' interest to the follow¬ 
ing figures: 


Armenia . 


Austria . 


Belgium . 


Czecho-Slovakia. 

. 104,685,000 

Esthonia . 


Finland . 


France . 


Great Britain. 

. 4,746,862,000 

Greece . 

. 15,373,000 

Hungary . 

. 1,888,000 

Italy . 

. 1,891,514,000 

Latvia . 

. 5,775,000 

Lithuania . 

. 5,728,000 

Poland. 

. 153,043,000 

Rumania . 

. 41,412,000 

Russia . 

. 227,620,000 

Jugoslavia. 

. 58,441,000 


Is it possible that we are in danger from any of these na¬ 
tions? Will any of them incur a greater war debt when they 
owe already more than they can pay? Will some general or 
admiral have the kindness to tell us how and when they can pay 
the present debt ? They cannot pay in gold for the reason that 
they do not have it. Will we use their goods and demoralize our 
own industries? No such debt has ever been paid, and we are 
at least safe in saying that no one now living will ever see it 
paid. Remember it is the result of war, not peace. 

We may want the navy for the purpose of collecting these 
debts, but to collect a debt by a war vessel or a navy is like 
spending a dollar to collect a cent. Such collections would make 
plenty of converts to Horace Greeley’s theory that there should 



















258 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


be no law to collect debts. As most men use more idle words 
than Greeley, it may be well to give his theory in brief. He said 
if A. wants to trust B. there is no good reason why <C. D. and 
others should be a police force to help him get the amount back; 
that gamblers pay their debts as matters of honor and that the 
ordinary man ought to have as much honor as a gambler. One 
thing is certain: under Greeley’s plan there would be fewer 
debts as persons without honor would be without credit. Some 
men who have been abroad scout the idea of another war and 
the Cincinnati Times Star voices the same opinion in this edi¬ 
torial : 

“About the time of the armistice a certain wise man pre¬ 
dicted that there would be no more war on a mammoth scale 
for thirty or forty years. There have ^en times since 1918 
when this prediction seemed destined to be made ridiculous by 
the development of new wars. But somehow the wars have not 
come. The memories of hundreds of millions of men and women 
of what they suffered during the Great War have been and still 
are the greatest power against new conflicts. The next genera¬ 
tion may go back to the old love of uniforms and military bands 
and clanking arms. The present generation has had its experi¬ 
ence with war and is not apt to cry for more. 

Of a somewhat different nature, but pertinent to tKe subject, 
is a recent editorial in the Pittsburgh Post: 

“Secretary Wallace of the Department of Agriculture, in a 
recent address, declared that ‘wars will stop only when the 
impulse for war is crowded out of men’s hearts by better im¬ 
pulses.’ It is not the people as a whole who have the impulse 
to war, as shown by the fact that the great war machines of the 
militaristic countries have had to be built up by compulsory' 
service. Left to themselves, the, great majority of the people 
are content to settle their differences in court. Wars usually 
are imposed by the selfish ambitions of a few, who hide their 
real purposes by appeals to patriotism as if national honor were 
involved. 

“Thus the need for an operation is rather upon the heads 
of the people than upon their hearts. The war impulse seems to 


SOME STILL DEPEND ON FORCE AND FEAR 259 

have been pretty well crowded out of their hearts as shown by 
the campaigns of instruction and other measures that have been 
necessary to get them to go to war. What is needed is a stimu¬ 
lation of their intellectual vision to the point of seeing how they 
have been duped by politicians who get in the way of their efforts 
to prevent armed conflicts. After seeing their sons go to death 
under a pledge that their sacrifice was to mean no more wars, 
after accepting heavy tax burdens under the same promise, they 
have permitted their minds to be befogged by prejudice stirred 
up by scheming politicians, and in the end find themselves cheated 
of the things for which they gave their lives, blood and treasure. 
What they must do, then, is not so much to get war impulses out 
of their heart—which they have already done largely—as to 
get more impulses of common sense to operating in their minds.” 

< 

Secretary of War John W. Weeks was evidently hit by the 
peace women recently when he complained about it to those from 
whom he takes orders. I give two paragraphs from his letter, 
which show that he regards a knowledge of war as necessary 
to make a good citizen. He evidently thinks the World War 
which nearly bankrupted the world simply affords an excuse 
for making larger appropriations and greater preparations for 
war than ever before in time of peace. Some seem to have the 
idea that if war is ever to cease now is the time to begin. Weeks 
says: 

“It is apparent that our people must equip themselves to 
participate in the problems of citizenship in war and in peace by 
actually participating, and use the best possible means in exist¬ 
ence, guided by the experience we have just passed through. 

“Unfortunately, there is decided opposition to this program. 
The pacifist propaganda has become too general in the churches 
and in many women’s organizations, the result of which tends 
to create a total misconception of the purposes of the War De¬ 
partment. It is charged that the War Department is preparing 
for war. No part of the Government or the people is less in¬ 
clined to engage in war than the Army, knowing as it does, most 
about it, but the Army has a clear conception of its duty to so 
-prepare that the country will not be ineffective months after it 


260 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


may be necessary to declare war as it was in April, 1917. It is 
quite apparent that these good citizens do not have a correct 
conception of the purposes of the Department. ’ ’ 

The Secretary excuses those who have complained of war 
preparations carried on at government expense on the ground of 
ignorance. They do not understand the situation; but the army, 
according to the Secretary, has a clear conception of its duty. 
The good citizens to which Mr. Weeks refers may not be so ig¬ 
norant of the situation as he thinks. Unfortunately the Secre¬ 
tary says one thing and does another. His words are for peace, 
but his actions, which people evidently believe, are for war. 
When he advised the government that the army had been re¬ 
duced below the limit of prudence and national safety and de¬ 
manded an increase was he advocating war or peace? If there 
is a man connected with the army or navy, from the President 
down, whose words and actions are for peace I should like Sec¬ 
retary Weeks to name him. 

To have secretaries of war, generals and admirals complaining 
of the activities of pacifists is a good indication. Military men 
call all who are in favor of both talking and acting peace, 
“pacifists,” and regard them as enemies of the public welfare, 
but peace people have at least one good quality, they do not 
care what they are called. As one bright woman says, we need 
friendships far more than battleships. Men and women who 
believe in peace are tired of men who talk for peace and prepare 
for war. They have come to the sensible conclusion that we 
are much like the people of other nations, and if we are better, 
either by nature or education, we owe it to ourselves to set 
others an example of right living, instead of appropriating more 
for war than any other nation. 

Some of the nations engaged in the World War were fully 
prepared either for self defense or aggression. While we are 
prepared for neither, according to military experts, we were the 


SOME STILL DEPEND ON FORCE AND FEAR 261 

■nation that saved the day.* If there is any argument in this 
for jingoes they are welcome to it. Secretary Weeks and those 
who advocate preparation for defense do not seem to know that 
the world has become tired of war, but are doing their best to 
make it respectable. They seem ignorant of the fact that for the 
-first time in history foreign nations have declared for peace, 
signing a treaty to that effect and asking us to join them. We 
ought to believe they are acting in as good faith now as when 
they asked us to join in war. We ought to think that any people, 
no matter how stupid, will act for their own welfare if permitted. 

Is General John J. Pershing, the highest paid General in 
the American army, a man of peace? Would one not think so 
to read some of his speeches, of which he makes many? He 
seldom forgets to pay his respects to the peace men and women, 
which he did not long since in this language: 

“There are too many pacifists running around loose for the 
good of the country. Their propaganda ought to be stopped. 
I am sick of the war against war movements. I understand that 
their sponsors are getting men to pledge themselves that in the 
future they will not serve in any war. Any man who owes all 
he has and expects to have to this country and expects to take 
part in such a movement ought to have a radical cure found 
for him.” 

The following is an editorial in the Christian Century of 
Chicago, an influential and undenominational paper: 

“Not at any time in our history did the cause of peace have 
so general and potent an interpretation as on Armistice Sunday, 
.1923. The very term “pacifist” suddenly came back into accept¬ 
ance in many respectable quarters and the conscientious objector 
to war was acquitted of the odium with which he has been re¬ 
garded since 1917 and received again into the society of Chris¬ 
tian people. Indeed, if we may judge not by what is printed 
in the daily press so much as by the correspondence that flows 
across an editor’s desk, there are widespread and deep wonder- 
in gs whether, after all, the conscientious objectors were not the 


262 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


better Christians of the war period. The war as we all see it 
now was so irrational, so brutalizing to mankind, so ineffectual 
in results having any relation whatever to the aims for which it 
was alleged to be waged, that a wave of disillusionment has swept 
over the whole nation. This estimate of the great tragedy is no 
longer the judgment of liberalism, but of the most conservative 
secular press as well. Even the Chicago Tribune in an editorial 
published on the day of Mr. Lloyd George’s visit to Chicago 
urges the futility of the war, and therefore of America ’s service 
in it, as its grounds for declining the former premier’s plea that 
the United States assume some degree of responsibility for the 
future of Europe. Thus the ardent Idealism of the war with 
its great moral goals of peace and democracy and world-wide 
justice has been rudely dissipated.” 

No doubt what so irritates military men is the fact that the 
number of peace people has increased greatly since the last war, 
and why should it not? That was not only the war to end war, 
but the world had enough war and wanted something better and 
cheaper. The leading nations wanted us to join them, but we 
refused what has been the desire of good men and women for 
centuries. Is it any wonder that peace people multiplied? As 
long as Germany was the leading war power in the world there 
may have been some excuse for preparing for self defense, for 
when a nation is prepared for self defense, as Germany was, it is 
but a short step from self defense to a war of agression. Even 
Villa said: “An idle soldier is always thinking of war.” 

(A few years ago we put the blame for militarism on Ger¬ 
many, and perhaps justly, but she had her w r ar claws so clipped 
that she is no longer a scarecrow and there is no nation, unless 
it is our own, to take her place. Overtures were made to Japan, 
but refused, as I have shown in a previous chapter. General 
Pershing has no kind word for pacifists, but most war lords 
sooner or later become pacifists. Germany was full of fighting 
men but they became pacifists and clamored for peace in 1919. 
They were willing to take it at any conceivable price rather than 


SOME STILiL DEPEND ON FORCE AND FEAR 


263 


have more war. They now think it came pretty high, and no 
doubt it did, but she believed in war, pinned her faith to it, 
and she must abide by the verdict in a court of her own choosing. 
When the Czar called a peace meeting at The Hague a few years 
ago, Germany was the dog in the manger and treated the matter 
with undisguised contempt; but she would have been infinitely 
better off financially and morally if she had allowed the Czar’s 
peace principles to prevail. 

France became a nation of pacifists in 1871 and was willing 
to accept peace at any price. Spain was tired of war in 1898 and 
was anxious for peace at any price. In fact, every man is for 
peace, if we allow him to tell the story, and the wonder is where 
we get the warriors. Germany was a Christian nation and did 
not want to fight. She simply kept an army and navy for self 
defense. England is too good to fight. Most of her rulers and 
leading army men are members of the Episcopal Church, too 
good to fight, but as some other nation might want to fight she 
keeps an army and navy to accommodate them. The United 
States is a Christian nation and her people refined and cultured. 
They regard fighting as fit only for animals, and though sepa¬ 
rated from any dangerous foe by 3,000 miles, some nation 
across the seas might want to do some killing and hence it is 
well to be ready for such a contingency. Everybody hates war 
and yet civilization still supports it. No nation keeps an army 
and navy only for self defense if we may believe what they say. 

I do not understand that a man must either be in favor of 
war or be a pacifist. I do not say that I would not fight at some 
inconceivable price, but, as David Starr Jordan, President Emeri¬ 
tus of Leland Stanford, Jr., University says, I want first to see 
the price list. When the commander in chief of the army and 
navy says that war is abhorrent to the world there is no justifi¬ 
able reason for it. All the world wants peace and all we have 
to do is to join those that are tired of war. Some pacifists went 


/ 


264 THE LEAGUE OP NATIONS 

into the last struggle because they were led to think it was to 
be the war to end war. If, however, we are to have a war to end 
that, and another to end the next and later one to settle that, and 
so on, we might as well go into chaos at once, as some of the 
European nations are likely to do on account of the last war. 

After over one hundred years of injustice, cruelty and 
hypocrisy, and innumerable wars that cost over $500,000,000 
and thousands of lives, the Indian question seemed as far from 
a settlement as ever. Finally it dawned on some one of influence 
to say that as everything else had been tried without effect it 
might be well to try justice. This novel experiment was made 
and with the little justice that it was possible to practice on 
the Indians on account of the Indian ring, it worked wonders 
toward a permanent solution of the Indian question. Those who 
say that any race is not as susceptible to kindness as the North 
American Indians either do not know or do not care what they 
say. 

When the early settler landed on these shores to establish 
new homes and a new nation, they found the Red Man obstruct¬ 
ing their way to full possession of the soil. Totally disregard¬ 
ing the principles of their religion, and in absolute defiance of 
every moral precept and obligation, they proceeded to cut him 
down with as little compunction as they felled the trees that 
hindered their progress. Treaties were made only to be violated 
by the white man whenever he found it to his material advantage. 
The whole history of the white man’s dealings with his red 
brother, taking his own admissions, is a record of cruelty, treach¬ 
ery and villany, and yet no method with the Indian was suc¬ 
cessful but simple justice. This was successful in spite of the 
fact that the words “white man” had become a synonym for 
“liar” before he learned to treat the Indian justly. When 
Red Cloud was leaving some white friends at the Black Hills, he 
expressed the wish that they might meet again on earth, but, if 


SOME STILL DEPEND ON FORCE AND FEAR 265 

not, in the land beyond the grave where white men would cease 
to be liars. 

General Sam Houston was an Indian fighter of considerable 
reputation and was severely wounded at the battle of Horseshoe. 
When serving as United States senator he frequently made the 
assertion that in all our difficulties with the Indians they were 
never the aggressors, but first suffered injury at the hands of 
the white man. He said that we call them savages but they never 
made a treaty they did not keep unless first broken by those who 
should have regarded it as binding instead of a mere scrap of 
paper. What is true of the Indians ought to be true of any 
people who are far enough advanced in civilization to have uni¬ 
versities and schools and churches on every hand and send mis¬ 
sionaries to every heathen country. All any people ask, savage 
or civilized, is justice and all our preaching, education and civil¬ 
ization is sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal, if we refuse it. 

In none of the articles and speeches that I have read of 
admirals, generals and other military men, have I seen any refer¬ 
ence to the League of Nations. I do not say that none mention it, 
but from none that I have seen would one know that there is such 
a thing. The League is designed to put a more reasonable 
method in place of war, but that is evidently just what warriors 
want to avoid. War and the preparation for war is their busi¬ 
ness and they think, or at least they say, the fear that comes 
from what they call adequate armies and navies is the only thing 
to keep the peace of the world. There was a time when the 
soldier was considered next to the clergy in point of importance, 
but let us hope that was a long time ago: that we now put more 
faith in justice than bayonets. Perhaps that was about the time 
when Herbert Spencer's Fijian commended himself on entering 
the other world by narrating his success in battles, and who was 
greatly depressed at times when on earth by the thought that he 
had not killed a sufficient number of his enemies to please his gods. 


CHAPTER XIV. 


Movements that Make For Peace. 

"There never was a time, when, in my opinion, some 
way could not be found to prevent the drawing of the 
sword." —U. S. Grant. 

There are several methods proposed to abolish war and if 
all who are in favor of peace would agree, short work would 
be made of the old system. All who are working for a common 
purpose deserve credit for what they do. Much confidence is put 
in Wordsworth’s saying that the child is father of the man, and 
for this reason more than others the educators, not only of this 
country but of the world, think that the proper time to teach 
people to hate war and love peace is in childhood. It is little 
less than criminal to teach children that to love their own country 
and their own people it is necessary to hate all others. Accord¬ 
ingly at a meeting of the American Association of Teachers held 
in Boston it was arranged that the teachers of the world should 
hold a meeting at San Francisco last July, and it was a success 
beyond all expectation, sixty nations being represented. 

There are some objections to be urged against this plan, good 
as it is. The adult population of the world is enthusiastic for 
peace, or we are led to believe a falsehood. The men and women 
should set a proper example instead of waiting for one from 
their children who are to get it in the course of time by precept. 
In the next few years, while the school books from which chil¬ 
dren are to get their ideas are much less warlike in most nations 
than formerly, our books are in danger of becoming more patri¬ 
otic and less truthful. Moreover, to wait for the children to 


MOVEMENTS THAT MAKE FOR PEACE 


267 


learn by precept what their fathers and mothers should know 
from bitter experience will give the military of this and other 
countries an opportunity for propaganda, something unnecssary 
and undesirable. 

The 'World’s Educational Conference aims to take the 
“spread eagle and hate propaganda” out of the world’s school 
books, thus putting into effect what has long been admitted, but 
‘never acted on, that God made of one blood all nations of the 
earth. More than 5,000,000 teachers and 200,000,000 school chil¬ 
dren are to learn that right and wrong are exactly the same in 
all nations. The delegates breathed the spirit of universal peace 
and what they said about peace and good feeling between nations 
might well put to shame some Americans who assume to be good 
and great. The Christian Science Monitor of Boston, one of the 
ablest daily newspapers in the country, says: 

“Sixty nations educationally organized for peace should 
make the earth an unbroken intrenchment against national prone¬ 
ness to greed and hatred. The sixty nations represented at the 
First World Conference on Education at San Francisco would 
form wide world circles of united effort in the forwarding of 
an enlightenment program. The delegate educators to this con¬ 
ference, from sixty nations, have already voted favorably upon 
five distinct proposals as embodying a practical plan for making 
the world safe by education. 

War feeds upon ignorance, greed and hatred. The educ¬ 
tion, the enlightenment, intended by this world conference is 
of the kind which radiates international understanding, an at¬ 
mosphere where greed and hatred breed not. The evidence thus 
far seems to indicate that the educators are after a moral and a 
Christian peace, and not a merely intellectual peace. 

“Miss Chari Ormand Williams, field secretary of the United 
States National Education Association and its former president, 
said in welcoming the delegates, ‘We have learned that children 
of one nation do not hate children of another nation unless they 
are taught to do so. We and the teachers of the world are re¬ 
solved that henceforth we will refuse, forever, to furnish that 


268 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


kind of instruction.’ With sixty, and soon probably all, nations 
‘active in inculcating a right outlook on life in the thoughts of 
children will make them safe citizens of the world.” 

Dr. 0. Thomas, State Superintendent of Maine, was chosen 
president of the Conference. He says: 

‘ ‘ The World Conference aims to give patriotism a new mean¬ 
ing and vitality. The old pleads pitifully for isolation, Wash¬ 
ington’s farewell address and Bismarck’s code. The new patriot¬ 
ism will be more discerning but none the less appreciative of 
national character. It will respect the common heritage of all 
nations without invading the sanctity of national integrity or 
practices and customs peculiar to each country. 

“The League of Nations and World Court will not down. 
We think in world terms now and we are all but ready to so act. 
Today we read in the morning paper the events of interest the 
world around. This is forcing us to think in larger units, and 
so be citizens not only of one country but become world-minded 
for world citizenship. I am impressed by the dignity and sin¬ 
cerity being accorded the Conference by delegates of other coun¬ 
tries and not one major country refused to«send a delegation. 

It was announced some time ago that an unknown donor 
had given Dr. Thomas $25,000 to be awarded to the one submit¬ 
ting the best educational plan to bring world peace and inter¬ 
national justice. It has just been made known that the public 
spirited individual who made the offer is Raphael Herman, 
spending the winter in Detroit. Beyond admitting his identity 
hd had nothing to say, but as money is said to talk, it may be 
inferred that he is interested. 

Dr. E. J. Sainsbury, President of the National Teachers’ Union 
of England, one of the largest teachers’ organizations in the 
world, voiced the dominating thought of the Conference by an 
address in which he said: 

“I believe that a working group of English-speaking nations 
could do much toward the establishment of permanent inter¬ 
national peace, not because no other group of nations could ac- 


MOVEMENTS THAT MAKE FOR PEACE 269 

complish this, but because the English-speaking nations are 
already bound together by a common language and common in¬ 
terest, and have, therefore, a great advantage over any other 
group. If there is to be another war such as the one we have 
recently passed through, it is impossible for civilization to 
survive.” 

Miss Juanita Golina of Nicaragua in her address gave the 
United States a left handed compliment by saying: 

‘ * America has frequently sent its diplomatic representatives 
and its military representatives to my country. America’s ma¬ 
rines have frequently landed, though we Nicaraguans would 
much more gladly welcome some educational representatives from 
your great land. We have all the others that we need.” 

China was ably represented by Dr. P. W. Kuo, who headed 
the Chinese delegation. He helped greatly in drafting a consti¬ 
tution for the Conference. He made several able short talks, of 
which we give the closing: 

‘ ‘ Once and for all, we have blown to bits the old belief that 
nations must disagree. We have come from the ends of the 
earth, each with his own problems and prejudices. We have 
forgotten the prejudices in our singleness of purpose to find 
solution for the problems.” 

Dr. H. J. Huntley of Canada sees peace coming: 

“The diplomacy of the world is changing. The new will 
depend on the temper of the people, termed public opinion and 
it will be molded in the school room. Canada, with 8,000,000 
population, sent 600,000 men to war and 45,000 never returned. 
Now the Canadians are asking themselves why the war was 
fought, and no one ventures a reason that would do credit to a 
supposedly civilized world. The conference on education, while 
not launching a peace ship, is taking the step that will eventu¬ 
ally bring assured peace.” 

Dr. Samuel Capen, president of the University of Buffalo, 
thinks the universities can do much toward creating a good feel- 


270 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


ing among nations. He would send more American students 
and professors abroad to countries that we know but little about, 
being of the opinion that the more we know of a people the more 
w r e are likely to see that they differ but little from us. He says 
in closing: 

“It is a common trait of human nature to be intolerant and 
suspicious of what one does not understand. On the other hand, 
if we have intimate knowledge of another people we generally 
admire and respect them. It is the special task of the universities 
of all countries to develop among their students, upon the foun¬ 
dations of knowledge, that admiration and respect without which 
peace cannot permanently endure. ’’ 

Hemender K. Rakbit of India told of the distressing condition 
of his country as the result of the recent war. Like all sensible 
• people they are talking peace and it is safe to say that India 
wants no more war. Mr. Rakbit wound up as follows: 

“There is no fundamental difference between the European 
and the Asiatic character It is one of those delusioilfc we are 
all conspiring to keep up, to the inevitable detriment of human 
progress. 

“We hope that the educators assembled here in this great 
gathering will realize that training the heart of man is more 
fundamental than the development of mere intellect. We hope 
that the civilization of the world soon will be based, not on the 
basis of politics, but on a cultural basis.” 

Dr. Henry Chung of Korea: 

“World peace is impossible without recognizing the theory 
of nationality based on Christian fellowship. So long as one 
nation insists that it has the right to rule another nation without 
consent, just peace is impossible. It is about time that the en¬ 
lightened public opinion of the world, not sheer force, should be 
the supreme arbiter in international affairs.” 

Dr. Frank H. Burke of Honolulu: 


MOVEMENTS THAT MAKE FOR PEACE 


271 


“In the adjustment processes which have obtained among 
people there is, first, the ‘jungle method’ of stealth, cunning, the 
irresistible blow. There is also the method of separation and 
isolation, introduced by Abraham of Old Testament fame, when 
he took the land on the one hand and Lot took the other. But 
the world is now grown too small for that. Bismarck tried it. 
England tried it. Both failed. 

“Many people are coming to believe that there is a third 
method and that it is rooted and grounded in education. This 
method demands that our youth no longer- be taught that the 
world is made up of a loose aggregation of discrete parts bnt that 
it is an organic whole with all of its parts knit together in vital 
relationship. ’ ’ 

Dr. Will C. Wood of the California schools gave an able 
address in the course of which he used the following language: 

“Prudence and self interest dictate that Americans shall 
devote more time to the study of history and customs of other 
nations with which we have dealings. It is necessary for the 
maintenance of trade relations. It is also necessary for the 
peace of America and of the world. 

“Wars are due chiefly to misunderstanding between nations, 
and misunderstanding between nations is due usually to lack 
of understanding of one another. World peace and concord' de¬ 
pend upon the elimination of provincialism and the study of 
the history and institutions of our neighbors to a degree enabling 
us to maintain peaceful relations with them.” 

It is hardly necessary to say that Germany was not repre¬ 
sented, though war was her undoing. Her children were re¬ 
ligiously taught that no country on earth is worthy of praise 
but Germany and no people could compare in any respect with 
the Germans. Though war has brought desolation, starvation 
and debt to thousands, the military spirit, in bad repute with all 
but militarists, is not dead and the war men are attempting to 
revive it. General Von Seekt, the military dictator of Germany, 
believes in commencing with the children. He advises giving 


272 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


them toy swords, tin soldiers and wooden guns, though they 
need something to eat and wear far worse. He says that only 
by military discipline can the Fatherland regain its high place 
in the world. One is reminded of the scriptural saying, “though 
thou shouldst bray a fool in a mortar yet will his foolishness not 
depart from him.” 

Some of the children need to be taught humanity rather than 
patriotism. For example a French primer printed since the War 
is claimed by the publisher to reach a circulation of over 400,000. 
In this primer the children are taught only hatred. The German 
soldiers are pictured as shooting down a helpless French boy and 
burning the roof of the Rheims cathedral. A French mother is 
exacting a promise from her child that he will never forget these 
things. The following blanks are to be filled: 

“The Germans have killed.. v . The Germans have 

destroyed_ The Germans have burnt- 

The child will never forget this and France is thus educating 
for war. 

Enough of the addresses has been given to show the spirit 
of the meeting. Strong speeches were made by Dr. David Starr 
Jordan of California, Prof. John Adams of London, Senor 
Martin Alerpa of Spain, Dr. William B. Owens, president of 
the American National Association, Mayor James Rolph, Jr., of 
San Francisco, Drs. Sen Yat-sen and K. I. Tai of China, Drs. 
J. W. Crutchley and George C. Pringle of Scotland, Dr. Tarulu 
of Hawaii, Miss Cora Wilson Stewart of Kentucky, Miss Clemen¬ 
tina Laing of England, and perhaps others whose names have 
been missed. 

Among the late plans for peace is that of Edward Bok, who 
offers fifty thousand dollars for the best method of obtaining 
peace, and fifty thousand more when adapted. Mr. Bok’s propo- 




MOVEMENTS THAT MAKE FOR PEACE 273 

sition may be somewhat spectacular, but if it will do any good, 
all peace men and women will give it a hearty welcome. He 
says in making the generous offer that the question has been 
hanging in the air too long already and involves the credit of 
the United States. He says further that he finds the sentiment 
in favor of the United States joining with other nations in favor 
of peace has grown steadily and rapidly. One hundred thou¬ 
sand dollars seems like a large sum, and yet we have it on the 
authority of a cabinet official that the cost of the late war for a 
time was a million dollars an hour. We may safely conclude, 
therefore, that peace is cheap at almost any price. 

The question for Mr. Bok and other peace men and women 
to consider is whether it would be wiser to accept a League that 
is already doing business and has over fifty nations behind it, 
or propose a new one and run the risk of other nations giving it 
up to accept something new. The League of Nations was pre¬ 
pared by the ablest men of the world, all the leading nations 
except Germany and Russia being represented. It is perhaps 
true that being established soon after the great war closed more 
feeling may have entered into some of its provisions than justice 
would sanction, but it was agreed on all hands that it could 
be amended where necessary without danger to its original 
purpose. 

It may be open to question whether a person’s peace con¬ 
victions amount to much if they need the stimulus of money to 
awaken them to action. If peace ever comes to what President 
Harding in one of his peaceful moments calls “a war wearied 
world,” it must come through men and women who are for peace 
instead of war seven days in the week instead of those who are 
for peace on Sundays, but for war whenever a military display 
or appropriation is to be made. The true peace man or woman 
has heard over and over the false and selfish assertions made by 


274 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


those who believe in the army and navy. iThey know both from 
judgment and conscience that the difference betw r een peace and 
w r ar is as great as that between right and wrong. If every per¬ 
son will let reason and conscience control his action, peace will 
come promptly and no one needs worry as to the method of its 
coming. We are not in want of a plan so much as to have a 
Senate that will adopt some plan. 

As might be expected, there is some difference of opinion in 
regard to Mr. Bok’s offer, but in the main it is favorably received. 

As to be expected some do not know what they think until 
they find out what action their party will take. These either did 
not reply at all or they wrote something without saying anything. 
More objections w T ere made by friends than by opponents of the 
League. This may be accounted for on the ground that those 
who are friendly think it good enough for any one who is earn¬ 
estly for peace. We have it on the word of Republicans who 
desire to boast of their power that four-fifths of the people at 
least were for the League until they were made to think that 
their party had something better. Most of them are willing to 
declare for peace as long as it does not bear the brand of the 
opposition party. They all love peace but some love their party 
more. 

The following will show the tendency of the many who ex- 
expressed an opinion on Mr. Bok’s plan: 

Among the number who expressed an opinion was Samuel 
Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labor. He 
replied: 

“If the American people could bring themselves to a serious 
consideration of international affairs there would be no need 
for Mr. Bok to offer a’prize of $100,000 for a plan to permit 
American helpfulness internationally. I am afraid .that a prize 
plan will find itself just as much a center of partisan bigotry 


MOVEMENTS THAT MAKE FOR PEACE 275 

as any other plan. For my part I see no need of a new plain 
growing out of a prize-winning contest. The League of Nations 
fills the bill. The precise terms of Mr. Bok’s contest do not. 
appear clear to me, and I can only say that he must be an 
optimist indeed if he thinks $100,000 will be more effective in 
helping world affairs move toward adjustment than the League 
of Nations plan, into which we put the best of our war-generated 
idealism and hopefulness. ’’ 

Thomas It. Marshall, formerly a popular Vice President, is 
for any plan that will bring peace. He said: 

“I think it a very fine thing that Mr. Bok should have made 
such an offer. Whether it leads to a League of Nations or results 
in something to take its place, I hope that a sufficient number 
of people will express their views in the hope that something 
definite will result v for the stabilization of conditions and the 
preservation of peace throughout the world.'’ 

Senator Smoot of Utah said: 

“I have had no opportunity to give the proposal extended 
consideration, but certainly only good can come from any plan or 
project which will stimulate interest in America’s relations to 
foreign affairs and in the direction of world peace. Mr. Bok is 
to be commended for making the award, which may provide a 
definite step toward the goal all of us are seeking.” 

Lieutenant Governor of Wisconsin, George F. Comings, says: 

“All the churches should co-operate and all who love hu¬ 
manity should do all possible individually and collectively to 
create a w r orld mind opposed to war and preparedness for war. 
It is useless to talk of tax reductions while so many millions go 
for destructive purposes. It is an insult to a God of Justice 
whom we profess to worship while preparing to murder our 
brothers by wholesale. War preparedness is a turning from 
the fundamentals of the Christian religion. The wav to stop 
war is to stop preparedness at once and forever more. ’ ’ 

Dr. Louis C. Washburn, rector of Old Christ Church, New 
York, says: 


276 


THE LEAGUE OlF NATIONS 


‘‘The problem does not seem to me to be one of finding a 
new plan, but one of generating a more co-operative spirit in 
our representatives. If two coordinate branches of government, 
which for other reasons than lack of money, are pulling against 
each other, the offer of a prize may or may not overcome the 
obstacles. ’’ 

Dr. Floyd W. Tompkins, of Holy Trinity Church, New 
York: 

“Mr. Bok’s action is admirable. It is admirable because 
it will set the people thinking and talking, and out of that will 
come some solution. The will of the people will force Congress 
to action. ” 

Charles H. Strong, secretary of New York City Bar Associa¬ 
tion and once a United States Minister to San Domingo, ex¬ 
pressed himself as follows: 

“Mr. Bok’s thrilling and dramatic offer is admirable and 
public-spirited. If it had no other effect than nation-wide pub¬ 
licity for the League of Nations and educating the public to a 
world peace movement, it would have achieved much. - ’ 

I 

Senator Pitman, member of the Democratic Foreign Rela¬ 
tions Committee, said: 

“It is unfortunate that they have to resort to that method 
to obtain ideas. Naturally the trained statesmen of the country 
might be expected to develop such a plan rather than the public 
with its miscellaneous equipment. I might add that the Admin¬ 
istration has been without such a program for so long that this 
offer may serve to meet its deficiencies in this respect.” 

Secretary of Labor James J. Davis feels true to peace. He 
says: 

“I think the idea is an excellent one and I cannot see why 
some practical plan cannot be produced. Why can’t there be a 
workable plan for world peace if everybody wants peace, as they 


MOVEMENTS THAT MAKE FOR PEACE 277 

all protest they do? At any rate, it is worth a trial, and I am 
glad that Mr. Bok offered his reward.” 

Governor Percival B. Baxter of Maine says: 

“Peace is the greatest of causes and war is doomed to be 
outlawed. May the great influence of this nation be as effective 
in bringing about world peace as it was in terminating the World 
War. Nations as well as individuals should and can be governed 
by law, and the time is not far distant when civilized nations will 
settle their difficulties without resort to arms.” 

Senator Curtis of Kansas, Republican whip in the Senate, 
said: 

“While I have not had time to study the proposal with care, 
it appeals to me as a most worthy intention, and I can see no 
reason why it should not receive wide interest and be productive 
of real benefit.” 

Senator Spencer of Missouri said: / 

“It is a generous offer and many times the amount would be 
cheap if it brought us an effective solution of the problem. ’ ’ 

Senator Fletcher of Florida expressed himself as follows: 

“It seems to me the subject is practically exhausted as far 
as making suggestions goes. The difficulty is not in making 
suggestions: the difficulty is getting the suggestions agreed to at 
this time. Various countries would probably have reservations 
or objections to any plan. It will be very hard to get them to 
agree. It was thought the last word on peace had been spoken 
in the League of Nations idea and a great many people consid¬ 
ered that the true basis, but after almost all the nations in the 
world agreed on that plan, when it was brought here to Washing¬ 
ton we could not agree on it. I don’t believe if a plan came from 
heaven it would be agreed to.” 

Owing to a delay in printing, the committee has awarded 
Mr. Bok’s prize before this book was given to the public. The 
first fifty thousand dollars has been given to Dr. Charles H. 


278 


THE LEAGUE OF NATION'S 


Levermore, a Republican, a college professor, a college president, 
and for some time past in the employ of peace societies. I would 
let it go at what has been said, but Mr. Bok has been investigated 
by a Senate Committee. As he was one of the few men who 
are able and willing to spend so much for peace I wondered on 
what grounds this committee would investigate. A Republican 
paper says that Mr. Bok is perhaps not guilty of attempting to 
overthrow the government but he is charged with reopening a 
question that had been settled by the Senate. This paper, fol¬ 
lowing the lead of most others, was perhaps speaking ironically. 

When was the Senate delegated to close the peace question T 
It has wrangled over the tariff since the oldest man can remem¬ 
ber and it is further from a just settlement than fifty years ago. 
Has the Senate settled anything? If Mr. Bok or any one else 
had given a hundred thousand to boost prize fighting there is 
not one chance in a thousand that it would have attracted the 
unfavorable attention of the senators who felt impelled to in¬ 
vestigate a man who spends money for the good of the world. 
The Senators who wanted an investigation found they had caught 
a Tartar and discovered that a man has a right to spend money 
for the peace cause if he is inclined. 

Mr. Bok should be thankful that Senator Reed, the Demo¬ 
cratic opponent of the League from Missouri, had the investiga¬ 
tion made, for nothing has done his plan more good. Senator 
Moses, chairman of the committee, announced that it would take 
Mr. Bok at least two days to answer the questions of the com* 
mittee, but he answered all they could think of in seventy min¬ 
utes and he seemed to enjoy the investigation far more than did 
the four members of the five on the committee. Editors over the 
country, without regard to party, some of them opposed to Mr. 
Bok’s plan, agree that his victory over the four inquisitors was 
complete and served them right because they should have 
known better than to ask for an investigation. The committee. 


MOVEMENTS THAT MAKE FOR PEACE 


279 


feeling that it had been worsted by Mr. Bok, decided to get even 
with Miss Esther Lape, who was director of the Bok award. 
From the newspaper reports they fared but little better in her 
case. From the trend of the questions Mr. Bok thought they 
doubted the honesty of those making the award, and he said: 

“If you do not share my confidence in Mr. Elihu Root, Gen. 
James G. Harbord, Col. Edward M. House, Miss Ellen F. Pen¬ 
dleton, Dean Roscoe T. Pound, Mr. William Allen White and 
Brand Whitlock, I hereby make your committee the following 
proposal: 

“I will ask the policy committee of the American Peace 
Award that the 22,164 submitted plans be .turned over to your 
committee either as a committee of the Senate or as individuals. 
If, in the judgment of your committee, there is found a more 
practicable plan than the one selected by the jury named above 
by which the United States may cooperate with other nations to 
achieve and preserve the peace of the world, I shall be glad to 
give to the author of the plan selected by your committee the sum 
of $100,000, under the following conditions, i.e., the payment to 
the author of $50,000 when your committee has selected the 
better plan, and $50,000 to the author if and when the plan in 
substance and intent is approved by the United States Senate. 

“I will also agree to defray the expenses of a nation-wide 
referendum, if desired, and in all respects to give to the plan 
which your committee selects the same financial support accorded 
by me to the present plan. 

“I earnestly urge upon you the most favorable consideration 
of this proposal, to the end that we may unite in an endeavor 
to give to the American people the uppermost desire in their 
hearts, an end to bloodshed and an era of world peace.” 

When such distinguished men as David Starr Jordan and 
Charles W. Eliot submit their views for world peace and the 
award is presented by John W. Fisher, a former minister abroad 
and a prominent candidate for President, it shows beyond ques¬ 
tion that the League is a very live question and that the Senate 
showed more feeling than sense in attempting an investigation. 

It is to be expected that, any document of so great import- 


280 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


ance as the Treaty of Versailles would need amendment. The 
request was made over and over again for the United States to 
tell what the League needed to make it conform to our wants. No 
reply was ever received except we were told that a hundred and 
thirty years ago we were advised to have nothing to do with 
foreigners. It is true that we send them missionaries and try 
to sell them goods, though we will not take goods in exchange 
unless given a big handicap called a protective tariff. 

Another movement for peace is composed of those who want 
war declared an outlaw. To declare it an outlaw would of course 
abolish it. As the principal object of the League of Nations is to 
substitute a civil court for war, there should be no rivalry be¬ 
tween those in favor of declaring war an outlaw, except as to 
which method will soonest reach the desired result. This is a 
strong organization or more properly a small organization of 
able men and women. Since over fifty nations have signed the 
League, and none have agreed to outlaw war, it looks from this 
angle that the advantage is with the League. The advocates of 
outlawing war have presented a resolution to Congress which 
lays down their principles and procedure. Prof. John Dewey 
of Columbia University is a strong advocate of outlawing war 
and in a public discusson recently he gave a brief definition after 
telling what the country needs. He said: 

“Such a proposition has at last been set before the Amer¬ 
ican people. In short, its name is ‘Outlawry of War.’ The name 
denotes more than a sentiment of moral justice. It denotes a 
general plan consisting of a few understandable principles. War 
is not merely thought of and denounced as a criminal; it is to 
be made a public crime by international law.” 

There are many who favor outlawing war who are competent 
to tell what it means and what they want, but Prof. Dewey’s 
definition is a brief one and will no doubt be accepted. As inter¬ 
national law is the law of nations there does not seem to be 
enough difference between the law of nations and the League of 


MOVEMENTS THAT MAKE FOR PEACE 


281 


Nations to justify splitting up the forces that are trying to ac¬ 
complish the same purpose, especially when the League already 
has a court that can be amended if necessary. Some of those 
who are strong for outlawing war would be glad to see all the 
nations join the League and settle the matter at once; to others 
the League is anathema. 

Bishop Paul Jones is at the head of a peace organization 
but he thinks the United States ought to declare war an outlaw 
before she can ask other nations consistently to so declare it. He 
evidently thinks if we cannot pass the League of Nations we can¬ 
not declare war an outlaw. There is evidently truth in his 
contention. 

Another strong group that makes for peace sails under the 
banner of “Law, Not War.” About thirty states recently held 
a demonstration and thousands sent letters favoring a world 
court which they think will abolish war. As the court is a very 
important part of the League its friends as a rule regard the 
court with favor. Thousands of letters and petitions were 
sent to President Harding urging favorable consideration of 
the international court. President Harding in one of the last 
speeches he made said of the world court: 

“But I shall not restrict my appeal to your reason. I shall 
call upon your patriotism. I shall beseech your humanity. I 
shall invoke your Christianity. I shall reach to the very depths 
of your love for your fellow men of whatever race or. creed 
throughout the world. T shall speak, as I speak now, with all 
the earnestness and power of the sincerity that is in me and in 
perfect faith that God will keep clear and receptive your under¬ 
standing. 

“I could not do otherwise. My soul yearns for peace. My 
heart is anguished by the sufferings of war. My spirit is eager 
to serve. My passion is for justice over force. My hope is in 
the great Court. My mind is made up. My resolution is fixed.” 

President Coolidge is pledged to the court by saying he 


282 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


would carry out the wishes of his predecessor and for the rea¬ 
sons he gave in 1920: 

“I believe humanity would welcome the creation of an inter¬ 
national association for conference, and a world court whose ver¬ 
dicts upon justiciable questions this country, in common with all 
nations, would be willing and able to uphold. The decision of 
this court or the recommendations of such a conference could be 
accepted without sacrificing on our part or asking any other 
power to sacrifice one iota of its nationality. ” 

Notwithstanding the fact that both the late President and 
his successor and millions of others want a world court, it be¬ 
comes evident that a few Senators do not want a court or a league 
or anything that will promote the peace of the world. It looks 
as if a majority in the upper house has joined the Battalion of 
Death. The world court, in the hands of the Senate committee, 
will perhaps sleep the sleep that knows no waking. If a legisla¬ 
tive cog slips and the proposition gets before the Senate, a few 
senators will try to kill it as Mr. Ludlow in the Columbus Dis¬ 
patch says they killed the League of Nations. 

Some are in favor of such a court as Senator Willis: “A 
court to which the United States can go but to which it cannot 
be made to go.” A court to which any one cannot be made to 
go when he ought to go, or one which may be obeyed or not, is no 
court at all. As the late President Harding said, we should put 
teeth into the court. Many think teeth should be put into the 
League of Nations. The findings of an international court or 
the League of Nations should be final and binding and the deci¬ 
sion of either should be backed by force—moral, if sufficient, 
or physical, if necessary. Physical force is now behind every 
government and every court in the world, and for one to say 
that he is only in favor of an international court or a League 
of Nations with no power, is to distrust such an organization in 
advance. It shows that we are acting the part of children and 


MOVEMENTS THAT MAKE FOR PEACE 


283 


may refuse to play unless the game suits us in every way, no 
matter what others may think of it. There is but little room to 
doubt that moral power will be sufficient for all purposes, but if 
the immoral need physical force the police power of the world 
should be called upon. Are the decisions of courts and arbiters 
such as to cause suspicion that a court made up of the best and 
ablest men of the world will render an unjust decision ? I call 
for the names and places where the worst decisions of arbiters 
have not been better and cheaper than the best decisions of war. 

As Senator Willis poses as one of the fairest men in the 
Senate, I cannot refrain from referring to his position in the 
Newberry case. As most readers know, Newberry was convicted 
by a Republican judge, a Republican jury, and under Republican 
law, of violating the law by which he was nominated. It was 
charged on the floor of the Senate that he was either a liar or a 
fool: a liar if he knew money was being spent to nominate him, 
and a fool if he didn’t know it. The Senators had the last guess 
as to whether he was fit to associate with them as a member. 
Willis w r as evidently afraid Newberry should not be seated and 
he offered a resolution which was sufficient to debar any man 
from the Senate if guilty of violating it. The resolution started 
out by practically admitting that $195,000 and perhaps a few 
thousands more had been spent in the primaries to nominate 
Mr. Newberry. The resolution then proceeds: ‘‘The expenditure 
of such excessive sums in behalf of a candidate, with or without 
his consent, being contrary to public policy, harmful alike to the 
honor and dignity of the Senate and dangerous to the perpetuity 
of a free government, such expenditures are hereby severely con¬ 
demned and disapproved.” 

Naturally the best way, in fact the only way, to show that 
those who believe such a resolution was to vote against the man 
who made the resolution necessary. One would think on read¬ 
ing it that the author was a patriot wdio disbelieved in boodle 


284 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


methods and would show his disapproval by voting as he talked. 
On the contrary, shortly after offering the resolution Willis 
voted for the man whose action was against public policy, 
harmful to the honor and dignity of the Senate and dangerous 
to the perpetuity of the govemnment. No matter what Willis 
may say on the court or any other question, he may be counted 
as a partisan after his fiasco in the Newberry case. 

Some plan must have been in the mind of the late Mr. 
Harding when he said that the old order had been done away 
throughout the world and the new order had taken its place. 
He must have referred to matters of government and I can con¬ 
ceive of nothing but force and fear as the old order and law 
and peace as the new. No matter what plan be adopted nor 
whether it be called league, association, agreement, understand¬ 
ing or something else, to be effective it must contain certain pro¬ 
visions. It must apply alike to all nations; all must conform 
to the same regulation; all must disarm, because an animal, an 
individual or a nation prepared to fight wants to fight; all dif¬ 
ferences between nations shall be adjusted fairly by an inter¬ 
national court. Questions dealing with a nation’s own affairs 
shall be left to the respective nations for settlement, such as 
taxes, who shall be admitted as citizens, dealing with criminals, 
etc. It may be that some of the decisions of an international 
organizations will not be satisfactory in every case, but the com¬ 
bined wisdom of all will be infinitely better than for each to 
be a law unto itself. Some of the acts of the United States gov¬ 
ernment do not suit all the States but they are members of the 
Union and it is bettter for them to belong than to attempt to 
secede, as some have threatened and others have tried to do. 
Any plan that provides for this, no matter what its name, must 
pattern closely after the League of Nations, though some who 
were strong for the Bok plan at first, jumped on it with both 


MOVEMENTS THAT MAKE FOR PEACE 


285 


feet, metaphorically speaking, when they found that it did not 
differ materially from the League. 

I give, as ably covering the case, an editorial from Christian 
Work, New York, one of the ablest religious weeklies published. 
The article was written by Dr. Frederick Lynch, editor in chief, 
who wrote the ablest and fairest criticism of Senator Johnson’s 
first speech that I have had the pleasure of reading. TheChris- 
tian Work has consistently stood for universal peace, no matter 
what party nor what individual may get credit for bringing it 
about. It regards the thing itself as infinitely more important 
than any political party or any man. After describing the Bok 
offer the article says: 

“The one great thing Mr. Bok’s offer will do is to set the 
nation thinking in international terms. That is really what he 
has in mind, and it is a great stroke of statesmanship. It will 
raise the question of the League of Nations again, although the 
issue is not “as dead as slavery,” as we have been told by our 
President. Mr. Bok recently said that in a trip about the coun¬ 
try he found seven men out of ten interested in it, where last 
year there were three out of ten. The writer recently made a 
speaking tour of the Middle West, from Kansas City to Duluth, 
in company with ex-Senator Colby, and his experience was simi¬ 
lar to Mr. Bok’s. Indeed Senator Colby and the writer often 
commented on this remarkable interest in the League which they 
found in such cities as St. Paul, Minneapolis, Omaha, Topeka 
and Duluth. Mr. Bok’s prize may fan this interest from smoul¬ 
dering fire into flame. 

“The difficulty on the part of those people who are inter¬ 
ested in international peace in competing for this prize is that 
they are practically all committed to the League of Nations. 
We know of hardly anyone in the nation who is really an enemy 
of war and an ardent worker for peace, who does not feel that 
the League is the only practical plan for achieving these de¬ 
sired ends. The League is simply the application of the com¬ 
munity life to nations. The way peace has been secured among 
individuals has been by their abandoning individualism as a law 


'286 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


of life and organizing themselves into the community—the ‘com¬ 
mon life’ with common courts, common schools, common wor¬ 
ship, common purpose—‘each for all and all for each.’ It is 
the natural way, it is the only way; it is the only way for na¬ 
tions and practically all lovers of peace and students of inter¬ 
national affairs have seen this. Most of the real peace lovers 
in America have been working toward this end for years, and 
the League w T as the fruit of their effort. Through the fifteen 
years of the Lake Mohonk Conference, through the hundred 
years of the American Peace Society,' through the twenty years 
of the New York Peace Society, through the years of every peace 
organization in the country, the organization of the world into 
the community life, that is, the League with a World Court, 
was the one thought gradually taking shape. The same idea 
runs through every writer on peace, Trueblood, Mead, Hale, 
Brewer, Taft, Holt, Abbott, Roosevelt, Burritt, Jane Addams, 
Lucia Ames Mead, Nasmyth, Jefferson, Merrill, Carnegie, these 
and many more. Thirty years ago Mr. Carnegie outlined the 
present League almost in exact detail in his famous Rectorial 
Address at St. Andrew’s University, Scotland. To be sure there 
are a few radicals and socialists who do not believe in a League 
or a World Court. But they never believe in any method that 
is either practical or true to the laws of nature or society. They 
sincerely hate war, and want it abolished, but they never put 
forth any constructive plan for its outlawry, and they oppose the 
one method which the concurrent thought and labor of all the 
peace lovers for a century have reached. 

“Furthermore, all the nations of the world except our own 
and Russia and Mexico have agreed to the League and are in it, 
excepting Germany, and Germany wants to come in and will be 
in as soon as the reparations problem is settled. It is not likely 
that any really new scheme would be acceptable to all the nations 
of the world should America evolve one. In the light of this 
and what has been said above, the probability of Mr. Bok’s 
offer issuing in any plan really new is very remote. But Mr. 
Bok, who is a very wise man, realizes this, and in the conditions 
attached to the offer has expressly stated “that the award will 
neither require nor-exclude the use of the existing covenant of 
the League of Nations as the basis of any plan submitted.” 
This really allows large scope, for no one of the most ardent ad- 




MOVEMENTS THAT MAKE FOR PEACE 287 

vocates of the League necessarily believes that the Constitution 
is perfect or final. The League might well be made more demo¬ 
cratic: representation in it might be made more universal; its 
activities might be widened; its powers might be greatly in¬ 
creased ; the question of policing the world might be worked out 
more definitely and satisfactorily; thus it might be improved in 
many ways. If Mr. Bok’s offer brings to bear the best intelli¬ 
gence of America upon these problems, it will have fulfilled itself 
a thousand times over, and Mr. Bok will become one of the great¬ 
est benefactors of mankind. ” 

We seem to think we are the only nation to be considered. 
One would conclude to h$ar some of the talk that if the United 
States gets what it wants other nations may be damned, as a 
political boss once said of the people. We forget that others 
have the same rights as we and that any provision not applying 
to all is unworthy of consideration. I do not deny that some 
are honest in opposing everything that savors of an agreement 
with other nations even to prevent war. Some are so constituted 
that they cannot help it. If the ten commandments were offered 
for their approval they would suggest a number of amendments 
before they considered them fit to be adopted. As Mrs. Carrie 
Chapman Catt said a few days ago, we should not ascribe ulterior 
motives to all who oppose affiliating with other nations to abolish 
war, for some of them are acting honestly but simply following 
their own conservatism. When an idea or a movement a jump 
or two ahead of the present arises they fight it automatically. 

No nation lives to itself any more than an individual, for 
nations are made up of individuals, and we have the right to 
assume that every nation, if allowed to act in accordance with 
judgment, will become a member of an organization that prom¬ 
ises the financial and moral benefit of its members. The world 
was ready for years to listen to the peace plan of the Czar, but 
instead listened to Germany, with the result known by the world. 
If nothing but fight will do, if any nation will he satisfied with 


288 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


nothing but war, it would better be at the inception of wrong 
than to wait until the warlike nation is fully prepared. If Ger¬ 
many had been told years ago that the world believed in peace 
rather than war, and she must go along with the others or fight, 
there would have been no fight. Instead, the nations waited 
until the Germans were thoroughly armed and had all sorts of 
diabolical instruments for destroying life and property, and had 
to fight when it took most of the world to gain the victory. 

The disturbance between Italy and Greece was considered 
by many as the supreme test of the ability of the League to 
enforce peace between nations. It was regarded with concern 
by its friends, while its enemies thought it a sure indication of 
failure that would prove fatal. The friends of the League were 
disappointed that the question of jurisdiction was raised by Italy. 
They felt that it was a mere quibble and made because Italy was 
a strong nation and Greece a weak one, rather than from any 
feeling that the League had no jurisdiction. Some Italian sub¬ 
jects had been slain in Greece, a case which, if not arbitrated, 
was sure to lead to war. The situation was undoubtedly clearly 
understood by both Italy and Greece when they signed the treaty. 
Both were members of the League and to hold that they were 
not bound by its laws would be equivalent to regarding the 
treaty as a scrap of paper made only for nations that wanted 
to obey. 

Instead of going to the League for settlement, as a member 
should have done, Italy at once demanded settlement, making 
her own terms and sending war vessels into a Grecian port, either 
as a bluff or to enforce her demands. Suppose that a like num¬ 
ber of Grecian subjects had been killed on Italian soil. Clearly 
Greece would have the same right to make a demand on Italy 
as Italy made on Greece. But if Greece had sent her only gun¬ 
boat into some Italian port and made this demand, what reply 
would Italy have made? She might have treated the matter 


MOVEMENTS THAT MAKE FOR PEACE 289 

with, contempt, or, if she did not regard her own treaty as a 
scrap of paper, she might have referred Greece to the League 
of Nations. As it was, it looked very much as if Italy presumed 
to flout both Greece and the League for no other reason than 
because she was one of the great powers. Fortunately the League 
was not obliged to exercise its rightful authority because the 
Ambassadors, who appointed the men w T ho were killed, took it 
upon themselves to settle the case. 

There was such a similarity between the case of Germany 
and Serbia, and Italy and Greece, that many of the leading 
papers of this and other countries drew a parallel. Germany 
undertook to make demands on Serbia for no other reason than 
because she was stronger. She did not think it worth while to 
ask Serbia anything about it, but imposed outrageous terms of 
settlement. Some of the terms were accepted, but some of the 
points were so unreasonable that Serbia refused, just what Ger- 
wanted to give her an excuse for making war. She would not 
listen to statesmen, but took advice from her generals and ad¬ 
mirals and rushed into w r ar, and it is unnecessary to say that the 
-whole world is suffering for her folly. She is at low ebb finan¬ 
cially and will finally become bankrupt if the nations insist on 
what she agreed to do if they would stop the war. 

It was Germany as an object lesson that made Mussolini 
pause. He did not care to share Germany’s fate and the papers 
of different countries, speaking the truth, gave him something to 
think about. He w^as greatly hurt that the papers of the world 
should think a treaty made by Italy should not be respected, and 
he hastened to declare for peace in a long article of which this is 
a paragraph: 

“When we decided upon the occupation of Corfu we made 
our objects very clear. The Italian Government proclaimed that 
the occupation was merely a pledge that excluded any danger 


290 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


of war. It rejected the idea of a permanent occupation, wishing 
to tranquilize the world’s public opinion.” 

When Italy has a dispute with a sister nation, especially 
if both are members of the League, the world will be more quickly 
tranquilized by an appeal to the League of Nations than by deny¬ 
ing that the League has any jurisdiction and sending a fleet of 
battleships with a demand to the other nation for a prompt settle¬ 
ment. One way looks like war, the other like peace. I am 
pleased to know that those who were present at the League when 
the episode between Italy and Greece took place, and who are 
supposed to know most about it, insist that the League added to 
its reputation by the trouble between Italy and Greece. Follow¬ 
ing is the opinion of Hon. Newton D. Baker, taken from late 
daily papers: 

“The Italian-Greek crisis brought about a demonstration of 
the reality of the League of Nations. It proved the League’s 
immense power—a great power for good, a moral power of the 
informed public opinion of the world.” 

“The League most certainly has not lost its power. No 
one can appreciate the strength of the League unless he has seen 
its council arid assembly at Geneva and heard the fervor with 
which the representatives of the assembled nations declare the 
faith of their respective lands in the need for the League and its 
future work. 

‘ ‘ The smaller powers of the world depend upon the League 
for protection and guaranty against aggression and injustice. 
They see it as a charter of the new order of international rela¬ 
tions of the world. But the great powers are not less loyal. 
They see the League as a powerful machinery for the promotion 
of permanent harmony. 

“I talked in Geneva with the representatives from all of the 
principal small nations of the world and was interested to see 
the extent to which they believe the covenant of the League of 
Nations not only to be the Bible of the new international order, 
but the crown safeguard and assurance against aggression.” 

Enough has been said to show that the League came out 


MOVEMENTS THAT MAKE FOR PEACE 291 

victorious in its only test. To make assurance doubly sure, I 
quote from the November number of the World’s Work. Under 
March of Events,” which is supposed to be editorial, it says: 

Fortunately the League was not called upon to press the 
issue; Italy saved the situation by climbing down and reversing 
her action. The suggestion that the League was discredited 
because Italy ilid not submit its quarrel, but fell back upon the 
Council of Ambassadors, is very wide of the mark. The League 
does not exist to solve all the difficulties that arise between na¬ 
tions; it is only the final resort. It does not make unnecessary 
the extensive foreign offices and diplomatic services of the world, 
but it contemplates the utilization of all existing agencies for 
promoting good relations between nations. Powers that are 
facing difficulties are expected to solve their own troubles so far 
as they can and to make use of any existing agencies—all this 
in the hope that an appeal to the League will be unnecessary. 
"This is precisely the course which Greece and Italy now took. 
They referred their quarrel to the Council of Ambassadors, a 
body organized by the Versailles Peace Conference to deal with 
disputes arising out of the Treaty. These diplomats promptly 
suggested a solution which Greece and Italy accepted. Out of 
the whole episode the League of Nations emerges satisfactorily. 
It has justified the hopes of its founders. Its business was to 
prevent injustice and war; it has accomplished both these ends 
in the Greek-Italian affair. It needs only to picture what would 
have happened had the League not stood in the background.” 

A book on the League of 'Nations should refer to Senator 
Hiram W. Johnson, who is one of the ablest and most outspoken 
opponents of the League of Nations as well as of the international 
court which he calls a part of the League. He belongs to the 
“Battalion of Death,” and has the merit or demerit, whichever 
it may be, of consistency. He was a candidate for the Vice 
Presidency on the Progressive ticket in 1912, and is a candidate 
for nomination to the presidency in 1924. One thing may be 
said of Johnson that cannot always be said of candidates—one 
knows where he stands on every important subject. 


292 THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 

One generally finds what he is looking for, and Senator 
Johnson is no exception. He recently spent four months in 
Europe and if he was looking for something good to say of the 
League nobody suspected it. He recently made a speech in New 
York in which there is an abundance of patriotism but not a 
syllable of humanity. He has much to say for his own people 
and his own nation, but no word for the higher brotherhood of 
man. He is bitter against the League of Nations but he admits 
that war is worse, for he says war is terrible, but there are some 
things almost as wicked as war. We can therefore infer that he 
doesn't think the Le.ague quite so wicked as war. 

He speaks of the greatest American of his time, meaning 
Theodore Roosevelt no doubt, but Roosevelt said the only way 
to have world peace is by a league of nations. He does not say 
that the hates, envies, jealousies and hypocrisies which he found 
in the Old World were born of war, something that the League 
of Nations is designed to prevent. He mentions Caesar, Charle¬ 
magne. Louis XI, Charles V, Queen Elizabeth, Napoleon, Cavour 
and Disraeli as able, but not strong enough to settle Europe’s 
problems peaceably. As these have been dead from fifty to 2,000 
years, we hope the world has made some progress since they were 
in the flesh. He mentions four others who he says were not able 
to bring peace, but as their nations belong to the League it is 
but reasonable to conclude that they have more faith in it than 
has one who regards it as only evil. He reasons that because we 
have always had wars we must continue to have them. By the 
same reasoning we should have slavery and duelling forever. 

Senator Johnson’s address is in reality a strong reason why 
the League of Nations, or something like it, is necessary to pro¬ 
tect the small countries, those that cannot depend on armies and 
navies to scare others into respecting their rights. He says: 

“England today pursues the policy that has marked her 
course for a century and a half; it is no different under a Bald- 


MOVEMENTS THAT MAKE FOR PEACE 293 

i 

win than under a Palmerston. The commercial supremacy of 
England is at the bottom always of its political policy. No 
sentiment rules its foreign office, and none interferes with its 
political alliances. It stands against a powerful Germany when 
England’s trade is threatened. It stands against a powerful 
France when France seems to dominate Continental Europe. 
Comradeship is forgotten when trade policies are threatened. 

“France victorious remembering the past, and fearful of 
the future, is determined to maintain her Continental position 
and her world power; she seeks by the strong arm what she as¬ 
serts is her just due. 

“Germany disarmed sees her fairest industrial province 
seized and dreams of a future day of reckoning. 

“The strong man of Italy bluntly announces the Italian 
policy, “Italy for Italians,” and pursues his nationalistic way 
with no other thought than the advantage of his own land. 

If what he says is true, if the leading nations are inclined 
to be selfish and look only after their own interests regardless 
of the rights of others, it is the strongest possible reason why all 
nations should belong to some league or association, and be 
obliged to respect those rights and principles that every right- 
minded man regards as the heritage of all. It is no longer asked 
whether we are our brother’s keeper, but Senator Johnson evi¬ 
dently believes we have no responsibility beyond our narrow 
vision. He predicts another war, more bloody perhaps than the 
last, but he contents himself with the thought that it will be no 
concern of ours if we have nothing to do with it. He gives some 
prominent men of his own party a well deserved slap when he 
says: 

“You remember how in 1920 a group of very distinguished 
gentlemen pledged their faith to the American people that if 
the Republican candidate for President were elected we would 
enter the League of Nations. Among those who thus pledged 
themselves were two great statesmen, Messrs. Hughes and Hoover, 
who are now members of the President’s Cabinet and whose 
utterances in behalf of the League of Nations were among those 


294 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


most eloquent and persuasive. They are now a part of the Admin¬ 
istration which in very emphatic language at St. Louis said that 
the verdict of the American people was rendered against the 
League in 1920, that America would have nothing to do with 
it and that the issue of the League was as dead as slavery.” 

It is true that the Republican candidate received a large 
majority at the last election, but it not true to say that his 
majority represented opposition to any association or league of 
nations that would bring peace instead of war. Mr. Harding 
always professed to be in favor of peace, and this large group of 
distinguished men to which Mr. Johnson refers, lent their sup¬ 
port to him because he promised something better than the 
League of Nations. Some of these same gentlemen have said that 
they were led to Mr. Harding’s support because they were as¬ 
sured that it was the surest way to secure an understanding 
among the nations by which war would be forever abolished. 
Speaking of the people he met, Mr. Johnson says: 

“Peoples I found generally kindly, courteous, industrious 
and lovable. Behind them are the centuries of their history, and 
with them abide the traditions of many generations. They neither 
ask nor desire our advice. Their habits of living and of thought 
have developed through the ages, and the suggestion of change 
in either would be received with no less surprise than resent¬ 
ment. 9 9 

Would Senator Johnson have us believe that the people are 
industrious, kindly and lovable, and would still sign a treaty 
and want us to sign one simply that it may be broken ? Did the 
representatives of over fifty of these peoples sign an agreement 
only to break it? One part of his address contradicts the other. 
His enthusiasm evidently got the better of his idea of consistency. 

Following is a complete answer to Senator Johnson and 
others in giving President Harding’s vote as a protest against the 
League. The gist of the article was written by Everett Colby, 


MOVEMENTS THAT MAKE FOR PEACE 295 

one of the prominent Republicans who was strong for the League, 
but induced to support Harding on the pretense of prominent 
Republicans that the surest way to get something better than 
the League was to vote for the Republican candidate. This is 
from the New York World of May 30, 1923: 

“It is an astounding charge that Everett Colby makes 
against President Harding in relation to the statement issued by 
the thirty-one eminent Republicans during the campaign of 1920, 
which the President now complacently repudiates. 

Mr. Colby asserts that Mr. Harding had full knowledge of 
the statement in advance of publication, that ‘every word was 
telegraphed to the candidate.’ That makes Mr. Harding a par¬ 
ticipant in it and puts upon him the largest share of the moral 
responsibility for tricking hundreds of thousands of voters. This 
is an indictment that the President cannot dismiss by silence. 

“Mr. Colby’s story of this political transaction is highly im¬ 
pressive : 

“ ‘I have tried to find out what these facts were. I find 
that the Republicans went on record in favor of an association 
of nations. That was the starting-point. They realized that 
something had to be done. Party leaders got together and de¬ 
vised a novel plan of getting thirty-one of the most distinguished 
Republicans of the country to sign a statement, which I have 
learned on good authority was drafted bv Elihu Root, that the 
purpose of the Republican Party was to get us into the League 
of Nations with reservations, and that the candidate was willing 
and ready to follow that course. 

“ ‘Before it was given out, every word was telegraphed to 
the candidate. He was to know w T hat they were going to say 
before it was published. It then went out through the country 
and had a tremendous effect. Many who had planned to vote for 
Cox because of his stand on the League question changed to 
Harding because they believed he too was committed to the 
League with reservations. I was one of them.’ 

“Nobody knows how many votes were swung to Mr. Harding 
because of the statement issued by these thirty-one Republicans. 
Certainly it was the most formidable document that the Demo- 


296 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


crats had to meet in the last days of the campaign. Mr. Harding 
had apparently accepted it at its face value, and after election 
he took two of the signers, Mr. Hughes and Mr. Hoover, into his 
Cabinet. He never rejected it directly or indirectly until the 
spring of 1923, when he found it expedient to make further con¬ 
cessions to the Battalion of Death in order to propitiate the 
opposition to his world-court policy.” 

Mr. Fred B. Smith made a tour of the world a year ago and 
recently gave an address before the Associated advertising Clubs 
of the World at their Atlantic City meeting. He is not only 
giving the impressions which he formed by careful investigation, 
but is substantiated by every college and university president 
who has made a study of the subject, and by every great religious 
teacher no matter from what nation he may come. I take the 
following extracts from his able address: 

“Everywhere I went, upon every kind of an occasion, in 
every kind of a nation, no matter what their religion, no matter 
what their form of government, no matter what their traditions, 
I found everywhere people with a perfectly overwhelming pas¬ 
sion, an emotional cry on the part of the common people, to be 
assured that war was a thing of the. past and not in the future. 
This is true in places where I hardly expected it. I thought 
I started well informed about the general tendency in most of 
the nations to be included, and I was fully prepared to meet 
some resistance at some places, only to find, however, that at 
every place regardless of what might have happened in the past, 
the common people, the ordinary people, the great throng of 
people, were crying out for an era of enduring peace and to 
be liberated from the curse of war. This sentiment is powerful. 
It is everywhere. I am of the opinion that throughout the whole 
world today there could be found a thousand pacifists to where 
there was one in 1914. The ‘folks,’ just the home folks, are 
sick, tired and disgusted with this intermittent lapse into war 
with all its terror, death, disease, plague and pestilence. This 
first impression cannot be over-estimated, for if ever this senti¬ 
ment becomes mobilized and can find adequate leadership it will 






MOVEMENTS THAT MAKE FOR PEACE 


297 


absolutely banish, war as a method of settling international dif¬ 
ferences from the face of the whole earth. 

‘ ‘ Continue war in the world and our philosophy concerning 
democracy, our theory concerning the economic processes of the 
world, our hopes concerning social life, and even the most sacred 
traditions of religion will go to the refuse heap-and be aban¬ 
doned. The supreme issue before humanity is simply this: are 
we to find the way of brotherhood in the world, or are we to 
continue like the beasts to fight when we disagree. In saying 
this, perhaps, I ought to comment upon the fact that I am not 
a pacifist of the extreme type, and never have been, and I am 
not advocating the theory of an unpoliced world, but what I 
am trying to say is that the hour has fully arrived when we 
ought to turn the page over and paste it down forever upon war. 
brute force, and collective murder as the way by which nations 
will adjust their differences when they disagree. 

‘ ‘ I may say that in all the travel of last year, in every nation, 
at every city, without one single exception, before the conference 
or convention had closed, some delegate was on his feet saying, 
‘If you Americans are so much interested in peace, why in the 
name of God don’t you bring your nation into full co-operation 
with the rest of the world to work for this purpose. ’ I was told 
everywhere, all the time, that America is the key to the world 
peace. I have come back to my own country with a firm convic- 
iton that it lies within the power of America to either, by full co¬ 
operation, see that the world shall have unbroken peace, or by its 
neglect of duty permit the nations to drift back into another 
unspeakable slaughter. Shall we have peace or war in the 
future ? ’ ’ 

Among the recent things that deserve notice is a series of 
articles in the New York Herald entitled “The Next War. If 
the people of the world are allowed to have their way there will 
not be another war, but if those who are timid or party bound 
allow the jingoes to make big appropriations for war under the 
old plea of self defense there is no predicting what may take 
place. The Herald says: 

“We today begin the publication of four important articles 


298 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


which will portray ‘The Next War/ as seen by an Englishman, 
a Frenchman, a German and an American. The writers of these 
articles are distinguished men, men of military training and ex¬ 
perience. Each served his country in the late war and all are 
familiar with the race of nations now on to be ready for ‘the 
next war/ 99 

The Englishman, Commander Burney, says it is appalling 
to think of the destructive power which science has put into the 
hands of mankind. There is scarcely a city in America but 
could not be destroyed, with every living person, within three 
days of the declaration of war by the United States with a lead¬ 
ing country. America is now nearer to Europe or Japan than 
England to Spain a hundred years ago. Gases now exist that 
are one thousand times as powerful as any used in the last war, 
gases which allow no time for masks but which kill instantly. 
He mentions half a dozen civilizations that have perished and 
intimates that we will meet a like fate at no distant day unless 
we do something to prevent war and armament. He says that 
he does not care to enlarge on the possibilities of germs and 
bacteria, but thinks it would be comparatively easy to poison 
the water supply. This is a small part of what he says, but we 
can draw our own conclusion. 

The second article, by Col. Jean Fabry, a Frenchman, agrees 
that science has made much progress in killing men and destroy¬ 
ing property. He mentions great -^nts in airplanes, 

gases, microbes and submarines, but says nothing of battleships, 
showing that military men regarded the scrapping by leading 
nations as an economic measure. Col. Fabry says that not one 
man in a thousand has any idea of what happened along the 
front in France. He also says that the citizens of France and 
the United States who loathe war most are the ex-soldiers, for 
they know what kind of a savage animal war is. He informs us 
the French alone fired 560,000 shells a day for months, one body 


MOVEMENTS THAT MAKE FOR PEACE 


299 


of Christians trying to kill and wound another. Is it surprising 
that the heathen call Christianity a religion of war? 

The third article, by the German General von Deimling, is 
in some respects the most remarkable of the series. He was one 
of the strong military men of Germany. He has reformed since 
the last war and we let him tell it in his own language. He says: 

“I have been a soldier forty-seven years. I have been pas¬ 
sionately fond of my profession as a warrior, but in the World 
War I began to realize that war is madness and that it is bettter 
for people to be reconciled to one another than to break one 
another’s heads.” 

I am pleased that the General has come to his senses after 
a lifetime of war, as it is better late than never. He quotes the 
London Times as follows: 

“Everything 'which happened in the World War in the way 
of using chemicals is mere child’s play compared to what will 
happen in a future war between industrially and scientifically 
advanced pow r ers. Were the production of poison gas a separate 
field of industrial chemistry, hope could be entertained that sci¬ 
ence would refuse to devote its resources to the destruction of 
mankind rather than to its development. However since the dis¬ 
covery of destructive substances is incidental to chemical re¬ 
search, this hope is in vain. Society must face the facts and pre¬ 
pare for the future or must prohibit chemical warfare through 
international agreements supported by strong international 
forces. ’ ’ 

The American gives an account of an imaginary battle in 
the future. 

As to be expected, the articles differ widely but they agree 
that if the people are so stupid as to have another war it will be 
infinitely worse than the World War. It was thought at the 
close of the last war that the nations would be glad to try a better 
way. At first the militarists kept mum, but as soon as they 


300 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


found that our nation refused to join others for peace they took 
advantage of the World War as a starting point to increase 
devices for killing and destroying. If any man in authority in 
the United States, from the highest to the lowest, is in favor of 
any peace except that which comes from preparing for war, he 
has failed to show it. 1 

Secretary Mellon is very desirous of reducing the taxes, and 
so are the Repunblican leaders generally. Mr. Mellon in regard 
to enforcing prohibition, which is one of the great problems of 
the country, says: 

“There no doubt are many improvements that could be 
made in federal enforcement, if men and money were available. 

That would cost millions of dollars a year in addition to the 
$9,000,000 appropriated for enforcement work, mostly for the 
employment of additional men.” 

There is but $9,000,000 available for the enforcement of the 
Eighteenth Amendment, but we spent last year over $700,000,000 
on the army and navy, or more than sixty-six times What we 
spent on prohibition. If Mr. Mellon or any other man connected 
with the government made any protest or complaint that we 
were spending too much for war I have never heard of it. 

If appropriating more money for war than any other nation 
and the only one to increase its soldiers in time of peace is not 
sufficient I might mention a few' of the devices for killing in 
which some Americans take pride. Only last December it was 
announced that our navy experts had developed what is believed 
to be the most powerful gun in existence. It was described at 
length, the description showing that the gun is of fourteen inch 
caliber and will throw' a projectile weighing 1560 pounds twenty- 
three miles. To make no mistake it is stated that this gun is an 
after war development. 

A new rifle, called the Graande after its American inventor, 
capable of firing sixty shots a minute, has undergone successful 






MOVEMENTS THAT MAKE FOR PEACE 301 

tests at the proving grounds. The information is vouchsafed that 
this rifle is intended to displace one which would fire but twenty- 
five times a minute. About the same time we are told that a new 
aircraft gun is being developed at the Watervliet arsenal. It is 
said to fire in bursts of five, whatever that may mean. I have 
mentioned that one of our military men referred to a chemical 
four drops of which cause death and a much smaller quantity 
deep burns. 

It is but natural that other nations, seeing our activity, will 
draw the only conclusion possible, that we are preparing for 
war, and they will do the best they can to keep in the procession. 
It may be said that nations will refuse to follow a good example, 
but they are certainly quick to follow a bad one. We are told 
that a British gunmaker has invented a tank far ahead of any¬ 
thing used in the World War. The government has owed a war 
debt for many years and wants sixty years in which to pay us, 

, many grumbling that we charged an exorbitant price, yet they 
ordered twenty-three of these tanks at a cost of $192,000. As 
may be inferred, these are not to convert the heathen. 

France is not to be behind, though according to John F. 
Sinclair in the North American Newspaper Alliance, France is 
deeper in debt than any other nation. She announces a chem¬ 
ical to nullify the effect of gas and ordered forty thousand pounds 
of it. They will perhaps find, if they have not already, that 
there is now a gas which kills instantly. France also has a new 
type of airplane which is said to have performed marvelously 
before high officers. In brief, it is so arranged that the opera¬ 
tor stands on the ground and kills men, women and children 
until he is tired, and runs no risk. 

Military men are envious that criminals are using the smoke 
screen and poisonous gases in their business and the war depart¬ 
ment has been asked to devise means to fight this growing men¬ 
ace. It would seem that our rulers, who ought to be the best 


302 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


men, and those who have no regard for either life or property 
are the only classes that have any use for smoke screens or poison 
gases. 

7 In the meantime our navy is regarded as sacred to the cause 
of war. There are some, however, who think the navy might be 
useful in time of peace as well as war. Th ^Record-Argus, qf 
Greenville, Pa., is one of the papers that has the sense to under¬ 
stand and the courage to express itself. I might say that the 
owner of the paper holds a high office in the state, but evidently 
doesn’t feel that liis conscience is mortgaged on that account. 
He says: 

“The President’s call for $20,000,000 to build fast rum- 
chasers for the coast guard has reminded those advocating econ¬ 
omy in government expenditures—among whom Mr. Coolidge 
has placed himself—that the Government is already in posses¬ 
sion of scores of submarine chasers lying idle and going to rust. 
Why should not these be used instead, it is asked, and the twenty 
millions for new rum-chasers be saved or employed in inescapable 
expenditures? The idle submarine chasers are fast enough to 
overtake the rum-runners and are better equipped for shooting— 
if shooting there must be—than most of the coast rum-runners 
now are or than the proposed new boats are likely to be. 

“The objection to this suggestion obviously influencing 
President Coolidge is to be found in the ruling of the Attorney 
General that no part of the navy can be diverted for use in 
enforcing the country’s civil laws. Presumably this ruling is 
based on both law and precedent, yet it remains to be said that 
the Government by act of Congress can divert its ow 7 n property 
from use in one department to use in another. At a time when 
economy is so needful because of the innumerable and impera¬ 
tive calls on the Government’s funds, when the Government is 
embarrassed with a plethora of shipping left over from war 
time and when even in the navy itself there ahe vessels lying idle 
and going to rust it does seem a pity to spend all that money on 
new rum-chasers.” 

Law is supposed to be reason, but if it is law for the United 


303 


MOVEMENTS THAT MAKE FOR PfcACE 

States navy to require the power that keeps it alive to spend 
millions that the navy might save when it has nothing to do 
but fight sham battles and make junketing trips, then law and 
sense have nothing in common. We might as well send a quiver 
of poisoned arrows to show good will as to steam into neutral 
harbors with our navy as proposed. Does any one imagine that 
other nations will be pleased at a display of our strength ? Will 
it make them think we are for peace? Fear has caused us to 
build and buy munitions of war, but if any one imagines we 
can strike a wholesome fear into others by showing how strong 
we are, he is mistaken. The only effect it can have or ever did 
have was to cause a sense of danger and a fuller preparation to 
fight. On the theory that money is misspent if it might be better 
spent we have been misspending millions. 

Mr. Denby, who has become something of a sailor, invited 
about a hundred editors to be his guests at government expense 
on a long cruise to take a look at the canal and have a good time 
generally. Fortunately, or unfortunately, Mr. Denby decided 
at a late hour that he would not go, but not wanting to interfere 
with the pleasure of his guests or the object of the junket, noti¬ 
fied them as follows: 

“I have given up all idea of going to the fleet maneuvers. 
I sincerely hope that those who have been invited to go will make 
the trip. But I will not be able, under the circumstances, to in¬ 
spect the fleet. I intend to stick to my post and face the battle.” 

Peace advocates generally, no matter to what group they 
may belong, agree that the hardest thing to prevent universal 
peace is the army and navy. With them out of the way peace 
would prevail because it appeals to the reason of every sensible 
'human being. A recent example shows what international trouble 
is likely to result from the navy. It is generally admitted that 
Japan has shown more of an inclination to carry out, the gentle¬ 
men’s agreement made at the Washington Conference in good 


304 


♦ THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


faith than any of the other governments. A recent dispatch 
Shows that, in spite of the good feeling of Japan for America, 
some of the Japanese do not like what somebody in the United 
States is doing. I give the telegram, and every reader can draw 
his own conclusion: 

‘ ‘ Tokio, Feb. 21, 1924.—‘Leading Japanese newspapers, com¬ 
menting today on reports that the American Navy plans to build 
ten gunboats of special type for the Yangtsze River service, seri¬ 
ously direct the Government’s attention to the anticipated ex¬ 
pansion of American naval power in Chinese waters. 

“Publications point out that the new gunboats would give 
the United States a preponderance in China, and assert that the 
ultimate purpose is to ‘back up American mercantile efforts to 
outstrip Japanese and British interests, ’ and to establish a Chino- 
American economic alliance. Chugai Shogyo suggests that Great 
Britain and Japan follow America’s example.” 

Only a few days ago it was announced that Japan had dis¬ 
charged fifty-three generals and a proportional number of sol¬ 
diers. Have we discharged any? Since knowing that we are 
increasing our fighting material Japan may recall the generals 
and soldiers she has discharged. 

If an American-'Chinese pact should be made it would un¬ 
doubtedly be followed by an English-Japanese treaty and other 
agreements, and finally war. War is what armies and navies 
are for. By the way, what has become of those statesmen who 
had a fit about foreign entanglements every time the League of 
Nations was mentioned? 

I am wondering whether “big business’ and those advocat¬ 
ing war or preparation for war are not in some kind of partner¬ 
ship. Whether they do not at least have a gentlemen’s agree¬ 
ment. They are at least close enough to be under suspicion. 
Under the head “Industrial Heads Map Out Mobilization,” a 
New York dispatch appeared in some of the daily papers of 


MOVEMENTS THAT MAKE FOR PEACE 305 

February '5, 1924. In order that camouflaging cannot be charged 
I give the dispatch verbatim: 

“New York, Feb. 5.—The government’s plan for mobilizing 
industry to round out its national defense plans were discussed 
tonight at a dinner arranged by the Army Ordnance Association 
and various engineering societies and attended by prominent in¬ 
dustrialists. Elbert H. Gary, chairman of the board of the 
United States Steel Corporation, presided. 

• ‘‘ Dwight F. Davis, assistant secretary of war, outlining the 

government’s program, pointed out that a perfect defense plan 
depended upon the co-operation of the entire nation. 

11 ‘National preparedness,’ he said, ‘does not mean solely 
the number of men a nation can mobilize, train and place on the 
firing line. It consists also of putting in their hands weapons at 
least equal in number, size and efficiency to those possessed by 
the enemy. 

“The final goal of this planning work, which, of course, can 
never be quite reached, would be that upon receipt of a telegram 
from my office, every manufacturer who is to do war work, would 
go to his safe, take out his production schedule, plans and specifi¬ 
cations, contracts, etc., and immediately start to work.’’ 

It is pertinent to inquire w r ho is the enemy of whom we are 
so much in danger? Does this dispatch not indicate that it is 
“big business,” the business that profits from making munitions 
of war, rather than fear of any enemy that stimulates those 
who kindly furnished a dinner at government expense? How 
different -Judge Gary’s speech at the dinner would be from that 
which he made after returning from a visit to Europe. We give 
an extract from that in another chapter. 

As our government takes the lead in being the military na¬ 
tion of the world, it is but natural that our generals and other 
men of war should try to lead in their respective lines. They 
pretend to fear war and yet no other military men make so 
light of it. Major General Seeley of the British army says: 


306 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


“ Chemical knowledge lias so far advanced that with a very 
little trouble and a moderate cost a hundred thousand people 
could be blotted out by lethal gas during an air raid. A great 
deal of nonsense has been spoken about wondeyful discoveries. 
The truth is that the manufacture of the most deadly gases is 
inexpensive and easy. It is simple and horrible. The choice lies 
between disarmament and extermination.” 

Marshal Ferdinand Foch, who knows more about war than 
any of our great warriors, says: 

4 4 War in itself and for itself is the greatest crime in the 
world. The world is made for peace and for work in peace time.” * 

Senator Borah admits that war is an incalculable curse, a 
menace to civilization, but not a crime because not having been 
so pronounced. It is admitted that war is a moral crime, and 
I fail to see how it could be any better or worse, no matter what 
it is called. All the crimes it stands for have been outlawed when 
done by an individual, but a collection of individuals does not 
make wrong right. We have high authority for calling war a 
crime, high politically if not. so regarded in a legal sense. In 
his Memorial Day address President Coolidge said, “to leave a 
nation unprotected is a crime against the world ? When did the 
world declare unprotection a crime? Senator Borah and others 
who advocate war being declared an outlaw are technically right 
but on that account no one consciously opposed to war will hesi¬ 
tate to abolish it. A few days ago ex-Judge John H. Clarke of 
the United States Supreme Court gave out that the League of 
Nations has nower to declare war an outlaw. As Mr. Clarke was 
considered a good lawyer and served six years on the highest 
judicial court in the world, it isn’t likely that his opinion will 
be disputed. Granting that he is correct it is now simply a ques¬ 
tion as to which shall come first. Shall the League wait for inter¬ 
national law to outlaw war or shall the League, nearly completed, 
go ahead and declare war an outlaw with its many other duties ? 

In view of all that has been said by military men of every 


MOVEMENTS THAT MAKE FOR PEACE 3<*7 

'country and of wliat we are firmly convinced, that another war, 
if we have one, will be much more bloody than the last, and the 
world no nearer the end of war than now, are not the words of 
Mrs. Maude Wood, President of the National League of Woman 
Voters, true, when she says that the world is insane if it has 
another war and that we are not worth saving if a better way 
cannot be substituted to settle international troubles? 

There are several plans for peace but the most discouraging 
feature of any method that promises peace for war is the in¬ 
difference or open hostility of great newspaper owners. Many 
of our great papers do not judge a subject by its importance to 
others so much as by their selfish advantages or by the number 
of readers that they imagine will want something said about it. 
For example, the Chvisticin Science Monitov , one of the great 
papers of the country, says that four Boston newspapers de¬ 
voted 968 columns to the prize fight at Shelby, which lasted but 
a few minutes, while but one seemed to hear of t'he World Educa¬ 
tion Convention at San Francisco which lasted several days and 
was allowed two columns. One of the dailies of New York de¬ 
voted thirteen columns to the fight and a few inches to the con¬ 
vention. 

A prominent paper says that there is no great hope for the 
abolishment of war so long as we guarantee half a million dollars 
for a prize fight and only offer a hundred thousand for a plan 
for universal peace. 

The newspaper owners may have readers who would rather 
read of a prize fight between two bruisers than an educational 
convention, but the makers of newspapers should lead a right 
public sentiment rather than stimulate a bad or doubtful one. 
A world educational convention, lasting several days and at¬ 
tended by the leading teachers of the United States and delegates 
of sixty foreign nations, should be considered as an important 
event, worthy of attention, but some papers in our leading cities 


308 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


did not condescend to mention it. The interest shown by the 
great newspapers of the country, as between the prize fight and 
the World Convention, is said to be fifty to one. 

Those who compose the faculty of the Meadville Theological 
School are inclined to look at the merits of questions offered for 
their consideration. They do their own thinking instead of 
taking the brand of. some political party as evidence that they 
need give the subject no thought. If their judgment and that 
of the party which they ordinarily favor agree, they vote with 
their party, but they feel that they owe fealty to their judgment 
rather than to a political party, though it seems an instinct in 
human nature to follow the track pointed out by a leader. Dr. 
Francis A. Christie, of this institution, is an ardent supporter of 
the League of Nations because it offers what good men and 
women long have wanted. When Judge Clarke resigned his 
membership in the Supreme Court to be free to work for the 
League, Dr. Christie was among the first to organize a non¬ 
partisan club in the interest of peace. He feels and works for 
it with the same zeal he shows in the many philanthropic causes 
in which he is interested. 

The following is from the pen of Dr. Franklin C. South- 
worth, president of the Meadville Theological School: 

“The result of the Great War was to offer the world a 
choice between a league of nations and the imminent collapse of 
civilization. No longer can security for America be found in 
its distance from the scene of hostilities between European or 
Asiatic powers. Our points of contact with all nations have be¬ 
come too numerous and the world has become too small. There 
are likely, in default of a league of nations, to be further con¬ 
flicts between great powers and it seems almost certain that 
another conflict will involve all the powers. Into the effort to 
establish the League of Nations there was condensed the hopes 
and the consecrated zeal of the centuries. The League is not a 
perfect instrument. Its present weakness is largely the result 


MOVEMENTS THAT MAKE FOR PEACE 309 

of the absence from its council table of such nations as Germany, 
Russia, and the United States of America. Its constitution needs 
some modification. But in spite of its imperfections and the 
policy of aloofness which has characterized the Senate of the 
United States in its attitude towards the League, it is still the 
chief hope of a war-weary world. ’ ’ 

Dr. Richard (Eldwin Lee is director of the laboratories at 
Allegheny College and a favorite instructor at county and state 
teachers’ institutes. He is a thinker, but says he cannot under¬ 
stand why the United States should join the limitations of arma¬ 
ments pact and reject the larger and better protection afforded 
by the League of Nations. Dr. Lee need not worry that he can¬ 
not understand what is beyond human understanding. 

Dr. Christopher B. Coleman is at the head of History and 
Political Science department of Allegheny College. Like most 
college professors he thinks there ought to be a closer union of 
nations. He says: 

‘ * Four years after the Republican National Convention com¬ 
mitted the party to opposing the League of Nations and to the 
development of an ‘association of nations,’ no plan for such an 
association has been produced. This fact confirms the assur¬ 
ances from other nations ‘that there is not room for another 
organization like the League, of Nations.’ 

“The principal factors in keeping the United States out of 
the League have been personal animosities and the exigencies of 
partisan politics. The former of these will inevitably yield to 
the softening influence of time: the latter shows little sign of 
abatement. This seems to indicate that the path into the League 
will lie along the line of social and economic necessities. In fact 
the economic and social unification of the world has progressed 
much more rapidly than the political. International trade and 
finance have reached the point where international cooperation 
is an absolute necessity: and this is a matter of importance, not 
merely to large financial institutions but to every farmer. More¬ 
over the ordinary intercourse of nations in such particulars as 


310 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


travel and exchange demand general consideration such as can 
come only through the bureaus of a League of Nations. This is 
true, also, of the control of epidemics and the promotion of the 
scientific advance necessary to modern civilization. The United 
States is already cooperating with the League in several of the 
agencies dealing with these phases of its work. Sooner or later 
it will be clear to all concerned that full participation will be 
better and simpler than our present embarrassed and difficult co¬ 
operation. 

“After the recent war it is almost inconceivable that an 
imminent menace of another great conflict did not draw the 
United States into full participation in the operations which the 
League provides for the preservation of peace. 

The four who are mentioned last should have their opinions 
of the League among others whose views are given, but owing to 
a misunderstanding of the printers are given a place in this 
chapter. What they say, however, loses none of its force on ac- 
account of position. They are men who stand high in the com¬ 
munity, and are ready to give reasons for thinking the United 
States should be the leader in the League as it is in other matters 
of world affairs. 


CHAPTER XV. 


A Few Pages in Closing. 

High stations tumult but not bliss create, 

None think the great unhappy but the great. 

1 Young. 

According to Shakespere, there’s a divinity that shapes our 
ends, rough-hew them how we will, and it seems to be the case 
in the present instance. It was fully intended to have this book 
out while the late President Harding was chief magistrate, but 
both he and ex-President Wilson have been called to join the 
millions who have gone before, and the world has paid them 
high tribute for what they did and aimed to do. The one short¬ 
ened his years by trying to convince the people that the world 
court is desirable, and the other in attempting to show that the 
League of Nations is necessary for the peace of the world. 

Though the late President Harding was not the victim of 
an assassin, his sudden death when the people had reason to 
believe the danger from disease v T as past and he was on the way 
to a speedy recovery was almost as great a shock as if he had 
been struck down by one lying in wait. 

The death of a President of the United States is more than 
a nation-wide calamity, no matter what party chose him as chief 
magistrate. The people unite in sympathizing with those who 
have been bereft of a friend and those who have lost a party 
leader. Even those of other lands have a high regard for the 
ruler of the leading country of the globe. 

It is not likely that either Mr. Harding or Mr. McKinley 
had any premonition that his last days were drawing near, 


312 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


but it is a fact that both grew more kindly disposed toward those 
who differed from them politically than they were earlier in 
their respective administrations. This may be accounted for 
on the reasonable ground that the more we see of those who are 
opposed to us, and the better we become acquainted with them, 
the less we see of their bad qualities and the more of their good. 
No doubt both men had come to realize that there is much less 
difference between a Democrat and a Republican than politicians 
would have us believe. The greatest difference between them 
comes from party fealty. 

That Mr. Harding became more liberal is evident to all who 
read what he had to say toward the close of his life. If he had 
been left to his own judgment there is but little room to doubt 
that he would not only have been in favor of the World Court 
which he supported so heartily, but for a closer union of nations. 
He might had had scruples against calling it a league, but we 
have a right to infer from his Colorado Springs speech that he 
considered some association necessary. In his address, among 
the last he made, he said: 

“I wish I could preach you a sermon. It is in my heart to 
doi it. I should like to have America a little more earnest and 
thoroughly committed to its religious devotion. We were more 
religious 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago than we are today. 
We have been getting too far away from the spiritual and too 
much absorbed in our material existence. It tends to make us a 
sordid people. 

“The World War lifted us out of the rut. We found our¬ 
selves consecrated to the defense of the Republic and fighting 
for our ideal of civilization, and we in America were put on a 
higher plane. But when the war was ended we started to drift 
back, thinking only of our selfish pursuits. 

“I should like more of fraternity among ourselves in the 
United States. I should like more of fraternity amongst the 
the nations of the world, and if we could apply the Holden Rule 
about which none of you will dispute, for we all believe in it and 
admire it, and the only trouble is we do not practice as we be- 


A FEW PAGES IN CLOSING 


313 


lieve, if we could bring the Golden Rule into every phase of 
American life, we would be the happiest people in the world. 
There would be no injustice to complain of, there would be no 
hate, and no rivalry, there would be no industrial conflicts, and 
human beings would live among their fellows as they would like 
to be lived with. That would bring a state of blessedness to 
human kind.” 

“I tell you, my countrymen, the world needs more of the 
Christ; the world needs the spirit of the man of Nazareth, and if 
we could bring into the relationships of humanity among our¬ 
selves and among the nations of the world the brotherhood that 
was taught by Christ we would have little or none of war and 
we would have a new* hope for humanity throughout the earth. 
There never was a greater lesson taught than that of the Golden 
Rule.” 

What Mr. Harding said at Colorado Springs and other 
places in has last days is so well recognized as truth that 
no one will deny it. It is one of the cardinal pleas of the 
League of Nations and very properly might have been said by 
one of its advocates. As he well said, the world needs to prac¬ 
tice the Golden Rule, for it is the spirit of the Christian religion. 
This spirit can be strengthened only by practice whether applied 
to nations or individuals. If a nation or an individual uses sus¬ 
picion and hate in dealing with others only suspicion and hate 
can be expected in return. If the Golden Rule be practiced the 
veriest savage will be influenced for good. The old story of the 
boy and his echo well illustrates this point. Every time the 
would say anything he would hear it repeated, and he thought 
a boy was mocking him. He finally got abusive, only to hear 
the epithets returned. When he went home he told his mother 
that a boy in the woods had mocked him. His mother under¬ 
stood the situation and said: “My dear boy, that was the echo 
of your own voice. Had you uttered only kind words you would 
have heard only kind words in return.” 

In our dealings with other nations we have no regard for 


314 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


the Golden Rule, the principles of the Christian religion or any 
other right thing, unless our humanity rather than our patriot¬ 
ism is appealed to. A few days ago Congress voted to send 
twelve millions of dollars to the starving in Germany. A few 
weeks ago several millions were sent to Japan because of a great 
calamity which needed foreign relief. Roth these acts were 
praiseworthy because both were to relieve distress. In a few 
days, however, this same Congress will vote fifty times as much 
for the army and navy the only purpose of which is to kill and 
destroy. Such policy is not only inconsistent; it is stupid. 

There are several reasons for thinking that Mr. Harding 
would have been earnestly in favor of this great nation’s joining 
in the demand for disarmament and universal peace had it not 
been for what Washington warned us so solemnly against, the 
baneful influence of spirit. Mr. Harding seemed to feel that he 
owed allegiance to the party that nominated and elected him, 
rather than to what Mr. Taft said is above all political parties. 
One of these reasons is that his speeches, especially his last 
speech indicated it. Another is that Dr. Irving Fisher, who 
is one of the faculty of Yale University and stands high as a 
man and teacher wherever known, says that Mr. Harding wanted 
an association of nations. Another is that the correspondent, 
Walter Wellman, who shared Mr. Harding’s confidence, has the 
same opinion. Finally, we quote from a letter to Bishop Gailor 
after having been President two years and three months. He 
said among other things in this letter: 

“I do not believe any man can confront the responsibility 
of a President of the United States and yet adhere to the idea 
that it is possible for our country to maintain an attitude of 
isolation and aloofness in the world.” 

Calvin Coolidge found himself suddenly and unexpectedly 
promoted by law from a position of comparatively little influ¬ 
ence to the head of the greatest country on earth. Any man 


A FEW PAGES IN CLOSING 


315 


who reaches the presidential chair, no matter how long the term 
or by what means he became President, is morally bound to do 
the best possible for those over whom he rules. If he feels that 
the policies and plans of his predecessor are the best that can 
be adopted, he is in duty bound to carry them out as far as pos¬ 
sible. If he decides that a change in some respects will be for 
the interests of the majority, he should make them without hesi¬ 
tation. In spite of what President Coolidge said during what 
must have been a period of more or less excitement, that he 
■would carry out the policies of his predecessor, there was a wide 
difference of opinion as to what he would do. He had the repu¬ 
tation of having courage. Would he go ahead and do what he 
and other good men felt is right or would he listen to the men 
who make and unmake Presidents? The Boston Post said its 
Washington corespondent shared President Coolidge’s friendship 
for many years, even while he was governor of Massachusetts. 
This correspondent said: 

“As to the views of Mr. Coolidge. In the first place, he 
will carry on with all of his strength the late President s policy 
on the world court. There is a possibility that he might go 
further. Mr. Coolidge has always had a leaning towards the 
League of Nations. I don’t mean to suggest by this that he will 
attempt to smash the policies laid down by Mr. Harding, but it is 
certain that he will favor some sort of an association of nations 
which will prevent war and which will make it possible for the 
United States to assert its great power and influence in the world. 
Certainly, one of the illusions shared by many politicians in the 
Republican party and elsewhere is that Mr. Coolidge is what is 
generally described as a reactionary. This is not the fact. .He 
is much less conservative in his views than the late Mr. Harding. 
The middle of the road progressives will find little fault with 
him in this respect. 

In addition to what the Boston correspondent said, the fact 
that President Coolidge was an admirer of Mr. Wilson and made 
a very strong speech on his return, praising what he had done. 


316 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


led to the opinion that while he might not advise that the United 
States join other nations for peace, he would at least be in 
favor of this, the leading nation of the world, setting a good 
example. Another thing that led to the opinion that he favored 
the League was the fact that he retained and still retains Mr. 
William H. Butler as a close adviser. Mr. Butler stood loyally 
and manfully by Senator Crane in his efforts to declare for the 
League in the Republican platform of 1920. It is known that 
the late Senator Crane was one of the League’s most staunch 
defenders. Of Mr. Butler the Springfield Republican, a paper 
of high standing published near President Coolidge’shome, says: 

‘ ‘ By the wiser heads, it is taken for granted that Mr. Butler 
is already established as one of the new President’s closest ad¬ 
visers, whether or not he actually comes to fill a role approach¬ 
ing those played by Col. House and Mark Hanna in the past. 
This much being settled by the fact that Mr. Butler was called 
into conference immediately after the new President reached 
Washington, it is natural that Mr. Butler’s own record in the 
matter of foreign relations should be studied. 

‘ ‘ Mr. Butler is not given to public statements. But not the 
least significant item in his record is the fact that, on the eve 
of the Massachusetts Republican convention in Boston in 1919, 
he was with the late Senator Crane as his friend and legal ad¬ 
viser in his private room during the bitter struggle over the 
reference which the party platform was to make to the Versailles 
treaty and the League of Nations. Through that long .night, 
when emissaries were coming to the senator’s room from the 
resolutions committee, Mr. Butler stood at Mr. Crane’s right 
hand. It was Mr. Butler that Mr. Crane conferred upon the final 
form of the platform when, at midnight, or after, he made his 
ultimatum to the followers of Senator Lodge. The platform as 
Senator Crane, with Mr. Butler’s support, then insisted upon, 
and as it was adopted by the convention the next day, called for 
the adoption of the treaty and for entry into the League “ with¬ 
out amendment.” 

If anything further is needed to show that the peace men 


A FEW PAGES IN CLOSING 


317 


had hopes of something favorable from President Coolidge, refer¬ 
ence might he made to the fact that shortly after he became 
President two ambassadors resigned their posts and it was an 
opportune time to ask others to do likewise if their views were 
obnoxious to the President. About this time Ambassador Her¬ 
rick of France spent some time in this country and paid a visit 
to the White House before returning. Shortly after his return 
he made a speech at the dedication of a monument. I think it a 
good League of Nations argument, but that others may judge for 
themselves I give extracts from his address as reported by the 
Associated Press: 

“It seems to me a pity that we and others who incurred no 
danger, who endured no hardship and yet who profit by the 
sacrifice of these dead men, should ask ourselves as we stand on 
their battlefield: 

‘ * 4 Have we faithfully executed the trust they by their death 
victory have handed on to us ?’ 

“Many thousands of Americans fought around this front. 
Two millions of them came to France eager to fight and ready 
to die. For wdiat ? What brought them ? How did they come to 
be here ? 

“If we were to stand aloof from what many call this ‘Euro¬ 
pean mess’ when it is apparent that the balance cannot be re¬ 
dressed without our help, then why did we come in to the war 
in 1917 ? Were we mistaken then ? Were our people and govern¬ 
ment -wrong in their almost unanimous decision to act? I 
answer, No. 

“No such disgraceful verdict upon this case will ever be ren¬ 
dered by the American people. We have put our hands to the 
plow and we are willing to run the furow through, for we now 
know that if the present problem is not solved and justly and 
quickly solved, then, truly, America will have fought the war 
in vain. The victors will continue to suffer no less than the van¬ 
quished, so long as re-established, financial order does not make 
it possible for them to return to normal life. 

“Tn 1917, after three years’ deliberation, what we believed 
our own best interests, backed by moral indignation, forced us 


318 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


into Europe’s war. In 1923, after an equal term of waiting, 
those same forces are calling us to aid in the redressing of the 
balance of the world. Can it be accomplished without us? The 
logic of events is stronger than any man’s wishes and the vital 
concerns of the country take precedence over the personal prefer¬ 
ence either of its statesmen or its individual citizens. 

‘ ‘ Because of the things we fought for, because of the things 
we hope for, because of the things our men died for, whether 
we like it or not, our lot is now cast in with other nations to a 
wery considerable extent.’* 

If this indicated anything it was that President Coolidge 
was in sympathy with the sentiments so well expressed by his 
representative to France. There are many indications that the 
President thought the best, quickest and easiest way to secure 
the peace of the world was to join the more than fifty nations 
that wanted it. Those who believe in substituting a court of jus¬ 
tice for wicked war were led to believe that if the President 
could not see his way clear to advocate our joining other nations 
in a common cause, he would at least make our nation what it 
professes to be, a nation of peace; that he would make the United. 
States a safe and worthy example for other nations and show 
by practice as well as precept that we put our faith in right and 
justice rather than force. By so doing he would have received 
the praise and support of a majority of the people of the world. 
This feeling was strengthened when it was announced that the 
President had joined a church and professed to believe in the 
principles of the Christian religion, which is nothing if not love 
and good will toward all men. 

The President, as usual, was rather economical with his 
information and the people were obliged to wait for his mes¬ 
sage to know what he thought, or rather what policy he would 
pursue on what is considered the most important question. His 
message upset all hopes that he would ask this nation to join 
'Others, or that he would even make it a worthy example. He 


A FEW PAGES IN CLOSING 


319 


advocated strengthening the army and navy, which is anathema 
to all earnest friends of peace. This was advocated in spite of 
the fact that everybody pretends to favor peace, with not an 
enemy in sight or even suspected, and in face of the fact that 
we already boast of having the strongest military force of the 
world. We are forced to the opinion that if President Coolidge 
is for peace at all, it is of the kind' that comes by preparing for 
war, a kind that we have had from time immemorial and a peace 
that is sure to bring war, the last being the worst in the world’s 
history. 

A determined effort has been made, mostly, if not entirely, 
by Republicans, to have another conference called to secure a 
further reduction of killing material on the part of nations, our 
own among the number. Replying to Congressman Pish, Secre¬ 
tary Hughes, who talks entirely different from what he did at 
the Washington Conference, says ho does not consider it feasible 
at the present time to call such a conference. Of course he puts 
the responsibility on President Coolidge by saying that in his 
New York speech he referred to the request, but declared he did 
not consider this a propitious time for a further effort at limita¬ 
tion. Peace men do not know of any time not favorable for 
limiting the methods and means of killing human beings. If 
war is as imminent as generals and admirals would have us think 
we may he in the midst of war before President Coolidge thinks 
it a propitious time for calling a conference. The League of 
Nations evidently considers this a propitious time, for it has 
^called a meeting which is now in session at Rome. Russia is 
represented but the nation that once pretended to take the lead 
for peace does not think this a propitious time for meeting with 
other nations. President Coolidge should be as far advanced in 
the peace cause as those who never espoused it. The Ohio State 
Journal says: 

“The real hope of world peace lies in the evolution of human 
nature, a slow process. But human nature would never evolve 
toward higher and better things if it did not think about them 
and aspire and try. That is the value of the Bok Peace Plan 
contest. It makes more people think seriously about the folly 
and wickedness of war.” 


320 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


It will be admitted without argument that the most serious 
foreign entanglement that this country has ever known is one 
that we paid for and has existed for a quarter of a century. 
We have an almost superstitious regard for the Monroe doctrine, 
but by our treatment of the Filipinos do we not violate this doc¬ 
trine both in theory and practice? Only a few days ago Presi¬ 
dent Coolidge’s attention was forcibly called to the necessity of 
Filipino independence, but he answered as the question has been 
put aside for the last fifteen years that the people of the Philip¬ 
pine Islands are not fit for self government. Where are those 
who are so much in dread of foreign alliances? 

We have left the assurance that the President will attempt 
to have the world court established. We suppose it will have 
teeth, as his predecessor proposed. If he institutes the right 
kind of a court all will be forgiven. A proper court will make 
the army and navy useless, for a world court should settle all 
disputes between nations, and no people would be so foolish as 
to stand the expense of an army and navy for ornament. 
A proper court of any kind is one that has authority. A court 
whose decisions may be obeyed or not by either party is simply 
a travesty on justice and no court at all. Those who are afraid 
that a court of the best and ablest men of the world would not 
be as just and as economical as war, might insist on joining for a 
while on probation to give the skeptical time to find out whether 
war is the better way. 

It would not be proper to close this book without paying 
a tribute to one who has been called the greatest man of the 
century, the one who gave a hope that this and all similar dis¬ 
cussions might see their theories soon become the practice of 
the world. The name of Woodrow Wilson will live when the 
stars grow dim, for he was the great peacemaker, the highest 
title awarded by the Savior of the world. The principles under¬ 
lying the League of nations have been endorsed by nearly the 


A FEW PAGES IN CLOSING 


321 


whole world and are destined to go on until the entire earth 
recognizes their justice and accepts them as the chart by which 
human beings are guided. The subject for which Mr. Wilson 
fought so nobly should always have been regarded as a moral 
question and never one for political expediency. Peace against 
war; right against wrong; wariors, ambition and false glory 
against statesmen and the common people are questions of mor- 
ality and should have no place in political discussions. Since 
the League of Nations has been dragged into the political arena 
it is one party of a nation against the world and there should be 
no doubt of the result. 

The only thing said of Mr. Wilson that savored of criticism 
was. when rightly understood a praiseworthy characteristic. The 
recent tributes to his transcendent ability by some of his ablest 
and most bitter political opponents confirms this opinion. It has 
been said that Mr. Wilson depended too much on himself; that 
he did not take the ablest men at his command into difficult sub¬ 
jects with which he had to deal. His great mentality and in¬ 
tegrity are admitted, and after mature deliberation had convinced 
him that he was right, it was natural for him to want the easiest 
way of reaching the result which his judgment endorsed. He 
knew that some men would agree that he was right and would 
make no trouble; others would insist on some sort of compromise 
and he felt that right should not be compromised. Naturally he 
chose those that he felt would make the least trouble. He was 
ever ready to take advice from those he felt prepared to give it 
and who knew more about the subject than he, but he was always 
for the right as he understood it. 

If what the poet says is true, “to live in hearts we leave be¬ 
hind is not to die,” Woodrow Wilson still lives, for no other 
man left so many mourning friends as he. Some have been 
widely known beyond the land of their birth and many have 
spent their activities in doing good, but no other man was so 
widely known and none whose death was so generally mourned 
as a personal loss. In every civilized country cursed by war and 
the expense of preparing for war he was considered a friend 


322 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


who gave his life to save the people from those who think more 
of money and ambition than they do of the comfort and lives 
of their subjects. He espoused a cause that has long been advo¬ 
cated by good men and women, but it was his to make universal 
peace possible and to give the world a hope of that good time 
foretold centuries ago when nations should learn war no more. 

Thousands have left home and country to seek a place where 
they would not be compelled to carry a gun and knapsack the 
best part of their lives, prepared to shoot innocent men they had 
never seen, at command of one who may have been their in¬ 
ferior intellectually and morally. Mr. Wilson advocated some¬ 
thing that would forever banish so wicked a condition and the 
millions concerned knew that it was no lack of energy or good 
faith on his part that he did not see his land a leader in what 
will sooner or later be regarded as a world necessity. 

So much has been said of Woodrow Wilson’s ability, in¬ 
tegrity, energy and sympathy, and so well said, that nothing 
is left to be added. Among those who knew Mr. Wilson inti¬ 
mately is David F. Houston, who was for some time his Secretary 
of Treasury. What he says embodies much that has been felt 
by eminent men in all countries of the great man who has passed 
away: 

“The masses everywhere in the world have lost one of the 
truest, most enlightened, far-seeing, and unselfish friends that 
men and women of any time ever had.” 







THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


INDEX 


A 

Adams, Senator Alva B. 180 

-Adams, Professor, of London.... 272 

Addains, Jane, of Chicago.. 2S6 

Advocate, Christian vs. Pagan... 136 

Age of Troops in Civil War. 102 

Aked, Chas. F., on peace ship... 446 

Allegheny College . 309 

Allen, Florence E., Supreme Judge 

Ohio . 70 

Allies, how they fared in war.... 164 

Aleesandria, Pres, of Chili. 202 

Ambassadors settle case.289 

Ambition and money, bad or good 6 

Amendments to League. 49 

America again defenseless.251 

American Bankers resolution .... 202 

American House of Lords. 10 

American students speak their 
sentiments at Indianapolis .... 242 

America’s army and navy.225 

Anthony, of House, accused of 

false economy . 251 

Apostle John, quotation from.... 28 

Are we better than others. 260 

Are Americans for peace.297 

Are we too proud to fight. 125 

Armed peace a form of war. 142 

Armor plate stock, how held. 155 

Army officers doubled. 74 

Armstrong, Whitworth Arms Co., 
investigated, 154 ; 

Arrows to show good will.303 

Article X of the League. 50 

Austrian situation described. 219 


B 

Babson, Roger W., a peace man.. 231 
Baer, Fraulein, speaks in U. S.; 

tells what German women want 198 
Baker. Newton D., on League, 293 ; 

trouble Italy and Greece.290 

Bartholdt, Richard, for peace.... 182 
Barnes, Julius H., on League.... 188 
Barton, W. E., author of pamphlet 52 

Battle, Sham, described. 192 

Battleships now usless. 107 


Batten, Samuel, writes of war... 217 
Baxter. Percival B., Nation can be 


governed without war.... .277 

Beck, J. M., what he saw abroad. 206 
Bedford, A. C., U. S. concerned. . 188 
Belgium, German treaty with.... 234 
Bernhardi, Gen. F. A. J. von.... 140 
Bethlehem owned Harvey stock.. 155 

Big Business is interested. 305 

Bismarck an isolationist. 130 

Black, Dr., opinion of U. S.. 202 


Blackwood, Dr. Andrew W., his 
calendar on Armistice Day.... 216 
Blair. Emily N., War. insanity.. . 200 
Bliss, Gen., on the clergy, 127 ; on 


business men, 128; on peace... 220 

Boasting of our power. 80 

Boalt, Charlotte W., on war.181 

Boeckle, Mrs., for peace.200 

Bok, Edward K., offer for plan, 

272; offer favorably received, 

274; prize awarded, 278; inves¬ 
tigation by Senate, 278; Bok’s 

committee . 279 

Bonaparte, a human butcher.... 153 
Bonds pay war debts but soon fall 

into other hands. 158 

Booth, Willis, on Austria. 180 

Borah, Senator, asks who threat¬ 
ens United States, 224; offers 

an amendment . 225 

Brandagee, Senator, kept League 
from Republican indorsement. . 39 

Briand, Premier, at conference.. 167 

British inventions for war.301 

Brown, Haberton, war expenses.. 122 
Brown, Dr. W. A.’s resolution. . . . 216 
Bryan, W. J., efforts for peace 

with peace ship... .. 146 

Bryce, Lord, “those who desire 

peace can keep it”. 205 

Boynton, Dr., England for U. S... 208 

Boys tired of being shot. 241 

Bullard. Gen., sees danger. 255 

Burney, Commander on war.298 

Burke, Dr. F., of Honolulu. 271 
















































ii 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS—INDEX 


Burton, Hon. Theo., the League a 

splendid conception .. 

Address when president of 

peace society . 

Butchers on English juries. 

Butler, Dr. Nicholas Murray . .... 
Butler, W. H., close to Coolidge. . 

G 

Campbell's speech for peace. 

Capen, Dr. Samuel D., would send 

more students abroad. 

Caraway, Senator in Times...... 

Carnegie, Andrew, address. 

Oatt. Anna Cihapman.21, 

Cecil, Lord Robert, in TJ. S. 

Chalmers, W. W., sees danger. . . . 
Christian. Century articles, 71, 72, 

216, 261; by Nansen. 

Christian church first peace so¬ 
ciety . 

Christian Science Monitor. 

Christianity, is it for war. 

Christianity and consistency.... 

Christian soldier unknown. 

Christians vs. Turks.. 

Christian Work .*. 

Christie, Dr. Francis A., organized 
a non-partisan League Club... 
Church, the Living, on peace. . . . 
Citizen, what he owes the world. 
Civilized nations too good to 

fight . 

Clarke, Ida Clyde devotes several 

pages to peace and war. 

Clarke, Judge John H., gives 
comprehensive view of the 
League, 69; says it can out¬ 
law war . 

Clergymen could banish war .... 
Clergy, some once for slavery. . . 
Civilization should unite with civ¬ 
ilization .. 

Civilized warfare, rules of. 

Cobden, Richard, resolution of. . . 
Coleman, Dr. Christopher B., 
speaks for the League. . . i . . . . 

Colby, Everett, explains. 

Columbus Dispatch . . 29, 34, 282, 

Colby, Bainbridge, saying of. 

Conference, Educational . 

Conference, Washington . 

Continent tells reason for Repub¬ 
licans leaving League. 

Congressional report on army . . . 
Coontz, Admiral writes letter, 
253; tells why Germany lost, 
leads for an adequate navy... 
Coolidge, President, speech on 
Wiilson, 57; the World Court. 
282; suddenly made President, 
314 ; what Boston Post said, 
315; reasons for thinking him 


193 

194 
97 

209 

316 


26 

269 

81 

286 

287 

174 

185 


217 


243 

267 

134 

233 

243 

82 

285 

308 

32 

6 

263 


76 


306 

127 

128 

SO 

100 

25 

309 

295 

119 

202 

267 

94 

59 

74 


254 


peace man, 316, 317, 318 ; Her¬ 
rick visits him, 317; favors 
strengthing army and navy. 
Copeland, Senator, says boys are 

used for cannon fodder.232~ 

Council of Churches. 230 

Cost of killing man in war. 156 

Cox, James W., League an issue, 
why it was defeated in 1920.. 194 
Cowper, war the game of kings. . 233 

Crane and Butler. ..316 

Crane, Murray, late Senator, for . 

the League ..38, 39 

Crumrine, Kennedy, on missions. 133 
Cummings, Homer S., at Geneva 211 
Curtis, Senator, on Bo'k Plan.... 277 

Cyclopedias favor war. 151 

Czar Nicholas II of Russia.105 

D 

Dana’s. C. A., fear of ghosts.... 249 
Daniels, Joseph, on reparations. . 14 

Davis, F. Dwight makes war pro¬ 
gram . 305 

Davis, John W., our present 

needs . 296 

Davis, James J., on Bok’s plan.. 276 
Dawes, Gen. Chas. G., on taking 

charge in Europe. 221 

Dawson on human nature. 159 

Debts of nations. 257 

Defeat of League a blunder. 30 

Denby, Sec., forswears junket... 303 
Deimling, General von, on war,.. 299 
De Kerquezec, why France arms. 179 
Delafield, Gen., denounces stud¬ 
ents’ meeting at Indianapolis. 244 
Denby, ex-Secretary of Navy.... 119 
De Stael questions Bonaparte.... 102 
Dewey, Dr. John, definition of his 


school of peace..... .280 

Dial, Senator, on world needs. . . 203 
Dialogue between congressman 

and naval officer. 155 

Disease and the League.. 32 

Dispatch, Columbus. 29, 34, 119, 282 
Does every man have his price. . 37 

Does God will war. 90 

Duelling in Rtissia. 127 

E 

East, the, shows danger signs. . . 247 
Ebina, Dr., of Tokyo, tells of ef¬ 
forts to Prussianize Japan.... 236 

Echo and the boy.. ... 313 

Edge. Senator, duty of TJ. S. 201 

Eddy, Dr. Sherwood, what the 

League has done.210 

Edison, Thos., opinion of war.... 115 

Education vs. prize fight. 307 

Eliot, I)r. Charles William.279 




















































THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS —INDEX 


ill 


El wood. Dr. Charles A., war the 

foe of Democracy. 170 

England and U. S. could maintain 
peace of the world if, 79; ac¬ 
cording to Johnson. 292 

Even Boston ashamed of her ear¬ 
ly ignorance ..,. 150 

Everybody for League of Nations 

before a party question. 194 

Examiner, Richmond in 1863.... 254 
Eydelotte, Dr. Frank, on League 185 

F 

Fabry, Colonel Jean, on war. 298 

Fallacy of preparing for war to 

aid peace . 78 

Fauuce, Dr. W. H. I’., President 

Brown University . 83 

Fear, basis of self defense. 250 

Fight like Christians. 126 

Filene, E. F.» offers reward for 
best way for European peace. . 198 

First Peace Society . 243 

Fisher, Sir John, quoted. 108 

Fisher, Dr., opinion of League. . . 199 

Fletcher, Senator, on Bok. 277 

Foch, Gen., opinion of war. 306 


Ford, Henry, his peace ship, 146; 
stupidity of war, 152; large 
employer, 150; people are igno¬ 
rant of war contracts, 203 ; no 
government dares tell the truth 203 
Fosdick, Raymond, visits Geneva 
and tells what League is doing 31 
Fosdick, Dr. Harry E., armistice 


day sermon . 218 

Fourteen reasons for League.... 3 

Fiance, what she wants. 227 

France trying to keep up. 301 

Frank. Dr., cause of war. 201 

Franklin called a dotard. 51 

French pacifists in 1871. 262 

Fullam, Admiral, on war-ships... 107 

G 

Gary, Judge E. II., on Austria, 

180; after visiting Europe.... 192 

Geddes, Sir Auckland. 188 

Gailor, Bishop, and Harding. 314 

George, Lloyd, peace depends on 
England and United States.... 183 
Gibson. Thos. B., Chief Justice... 151 
German, Gen. Ludendorff. 113 


Germany no longer a bugbear, 11 ; 
theory of war, 97; what she 
might have ddne, 113; needs 
advice, 234 ; why she lost con¬ 
trol, 253; war claws clipped, 

262; Senator Johnson.293 

Glass, Senator, Armistice Day... 215 
Globe-Democrat of St. Louis- 48 


Globe-Democrat of Toronto. 216 

God, does He will war. 90 

Golina, Miss Juanita. 269 

Gompers, Samuel, on League .... 274 
Goode, J. Paul, U. S. must join.. 186 
Governments slow to change .... 9 

Gordon, Major Chas. V. 215 

Grant, U. S., effect of travel, 229 ; 

quotation from . 266 

Greely’s theory of debt. 257 

Grey, Lord, at Conference. 84 

Grigg. Edward, what we have 

done . 211 

Gueprette, French Admiral. 107 


H 

Hamilton, Alexander .16, 51, 125 

Harding, Warren G., whom did 
he consult in regard to League, 

44 ; his five propositions, 59 ; 
Washington Conference econom¬ 
ic, 65; better than League, 

101 ; organizes forces of coun¬ 
try, 103 ; speaks at Conference, 

103; says world abhors war, 

104 ; was strong for World 
Court. 281 ; reasons for associa¬ 
tion of nations, 314 ; his death 
a shock, 308; invokes Golden 

Rule .312 

Harris, Senator, visits Geneva... 81 
Harvey, armor plate company. . . 155 
Hay, Hon. John's opinion of war 5 
Henderson, Mrs., a better wav.. 196 
Henry, Patrick, against constitu¬ 
tion for colonies .. 

Hindus have made peace with mo- 

hammedans . 247 

Hill, David J., on League. 180 

Hitchcock, Senator, in charge of ^ 

the League . 

Holt. Hamilton, questions Secre¬ 
tary Hoover . 

Hooper, Mrs., League stops war.. 18- 
Hoover, Herbert, for League, 57; 
says party pledged to associa- 

tion, ...;• 6 

Houston, David F., tribute to 

Wilson ... • * :}7o 

Houston, Herbert S., •••••• - 

Huestcr, Dr.. U. S. and Turkey.. 189 
Hughes. Charles E., speech at 

Washington Conference . 105 

Hull, Hon. Cordell, on outlook for 

his party . J®® 

Humorists taking notice . 

Hunter, Allen A*., offered resolu¬ 
tion at Indianapolis . 24- 

Humanity and Patriotism . 161 

Huntley, Dt. H, J., sees peace... 269 






















































iv 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS—INDEX 


7 

If a legislative cog slips. 282 

Independent New York . 52 

Indians .regard justice. 2(54 

Individual vs. government.253 

Irwin, Will, war brutalizes but 

never refines .. . . 139 

Is Christianity a warlike religion 

as charged by the heathen_ 134 

Is Congress consistent . 314 

Is U. S. the only nation. 287 

Is our idea of justice and religion 
a tinkling cymbal . 265 

J 


Jamison, Mrs., opinion of fear . . 250 
Japan friendly to the U. S., 235 ; 
attempt to Prussianize, 236; 
meets personal obligations, 

238 ; students oppose war, 240 ; 

what she doesn’t like. 304 * 

Jefferson, Dr. Charles E., on 
League of Nations, 90; great 
armies and navies a curse, 144 ; 

remarkable address . 138 

Johnson. Hiram W., New York, 
speech, 291 ; on Hughes and 

Hoover . 293 

Jones, Paul, on World Court.... 119 
Jordan, Dr. David Starr, Atlantic 
Monthly, 238 ; writes on peace 279 

Journal, army and navy. 252 

Journal, Chicago, extract from.. 221 

Journal. Milwaukee, quoted. 212 

Journal, Medical, extract . 223 

Joyce, W. B., gives figures. 209 

Jusserand, M., French minister, 
visits Geneva . 214 

K 

Kato. Baron of Japan, a friend of 

^ the United States . 236 

Kaiser, the, not punishable.63 

Kennedy, Rev. S. A., on war. ... 90 

Kent. Fred I.. at bankers’ club, 

219 ; kind of religion questioned 129 
Korff, Baron Sergius A., the 
League the breath of small na¬ 
tions .. . . . 211 

Tvrauskopf, Rabbi, two sermons.. 138 

Krupps, necessary for war. 140 

Kuo, Dr., of China, combats the 
theory that nations must dis¬ 
agree . 269 

L 

La Follette, Senator, abroad.... 177 
Laidlaw, Mrs., League a football 192 

Laing, Miss, of England. 272 

Lape. Miss Esther, investigated as 

one of Bok’s committee. 279 

Lauder, Henry, on the League v . . 186 
League of Nations, fourteen rea¬ 
sons for, 3 ; previous efforts for, 


24; needed for an issue, 29; 
how League was defeated, 34; 
some League men cared for, 

59 ; a live question, 67 ; League 
and Conference compared, 162; 
a splendid conception, 193 ; ev¬ 
erybody for League until made 
partisan, 194; advantages of, 

233; students for, 242 ; not a 

party question . 320 

Lausan ie Treaty . 207 

Leaf, Walter, has doubts ., 212 

Ledger, Philadelphia,s, article... 238 
.Lee, Dr. Edwin R., can t under¬ 
stand why Conference was se¬ 
lected . 309 

Leinback. Dr. Paul S., Treaty 
with Turkej should be defeated 207 
Libby, Frederick J., shall we have 

war or peace . 195 

Leslie’s on burdens of war. 36 

Levermore, Chas. H., Bok prize.. 278 
Lincoln offered to pay. for slaves 

if owners would agree. 150 

Living Church, article from. 33 

Locks, Katherine, address before 

Altrusa club . 199 

Lodge, Senator, for a league, 46; 
inconsistent, 46 ; voted for sep¬ 
arate peace with Germany, 45; 
wanted German goods branded, 

45 ; talks for war. 225 

London papeis on war profits.... 153 
Ludlow, Louis, League defeated. 

34; Junkets by army leaders.. 119 

Ludendorrf, General .113, 246 

Lowell, James Russel. 94 

Lynch. Dr. Frederick . 285 

Lvtton. Lord, quotation. 249 

M 

McAdoo, W. G., ou League. 196 

McDowell, Miss, at Geneva. 70 

McKay, Dr., gives address. 208 

McKellar, Senator, the need of the 

hour . 201 

McKenna, Sir Reginald. 195 

Mallalieu, Dr. V., on League. ... 190 
Manning, Bishop, to fellow men. 200 
Mankind, how will regard war in 

future . . . .•. 230 

Markham E., was unnecessary.. 207 
Marshall, T. It., for Bok’s plan.. 275 
Mayo Brothers in competition 

with military men . 151 

Mayer, Lieut., U. S., not prepaied, 

251 ; a soldier’s joys, 252 ; du¬ 
ties of a soldier. 252 

Meadville Theological School.... 308 

Mellon. Sec., on prohibition.300 

Memory grows less distinct. 63 

Meeker, Royal, for the League... 181 

Metric system, how adopted. 10 

Missionaries discredited and dis¬ 
couraged by war. 126 

Mitchell. Gen., on battleships . . 113 



















































THE LEAGUE 


Mohammedans and Hindus .. . 
Morgan, Ruth, on the League.... 
Morganthau, Henry, how U. S. is 

outwitted by Turks . 

Morals taught by warriors. 

Moslems against Christians .... 
Moses. Senator, chairman of in¬ 
vestigating committee . 

Movements that help peace. 

Mussolini and his excuse. 

N 

Nansen, Dr. Fridtjof tells what 
League has done in Austria. . . 

Napoleon’s greatest woman. 

Nations all alike in war, 175; 

what they owe us. 

Navy or good roads which. 

Navy League a money maker. . . 

Navy as an investment. 

News and Observer, Raleigh. 

New or old order. 

Nicholas II against war. .. 

Nietzschie, German radical. 

Nichi Nichi, Japanese paper. 

No nation lives to itself. 

North American, Philadelphia... 
Nortbcliffe, a war promoter. 

0 

O'Ryan, General F., for peace.. 
Owens, Dr. William B.,. 

P 

Pacifists among students, 242; 
pacifists numerous in all coun¬ 
tries .. ... 

Page, Kirby, war up to church. . 
Page, Walter H., on the English. . 
Palmer, Frederick, hates war. . . . 

Parlette, Ralph, on leaders. 

Partisanship, influence of . 

Party, fealty against, 16; affects 
of' party whip, 59; of party 

spirit .. 

Pathfinder on the League, 29 ; on 

poison gas . 

Patriot may be law breaker. . . . 
Patriotism covers many sins, 161 , 

patriotism vs. humanity. 

Peace a part of religion, 8; 
strangled by militarists, 59: 
prominent peace men and wom¬ 
en named . 

Peabody, Rosa Price, a nurse... 

Pepper, Senator, on League. 

Pershing, Gen. John .T., what he 

thinks of peace people.62, 

Pettigrew, on lawyers . 

Perry, Rt. Rev. James DeWolf.. 
Phipps. Miss Anita, to keep wom¬ 
en from becoming pacifists.... 

Pilsener, a German gun. 

Pinkham, H. W., IT. S. by herself. 
Pitman, Senator . 


NATIONS—INDEX T 


Plain Dealer, Cleveland . 128 

Polygamy in Turkey. 62 

Post, Pittsburgh, on Japan, 238; 

on war impulse. 258 

Preachers are convinced . 133 

Premier of Japan thanks U. S... 237 
Pres, should not be partisan.... 40 

Primer for the French. 272 

Proposition made to Japan.235 

Putnam, Geo. Haven . 220 

Q 

Quakers, no use for guns. 173 

Quinn, John R., on World War.. 217 


R 

Rakbit, Ilemender K., of India, 
European and Asiatic character 270 


Reconciling good and evil. 86 

Record-Argus, rumechasers. 302 

Reed Dr. Chas. A. L., on League.. 205 

Religion, how understood. 11S 

Republican, Springfield . 316 

Republicans for League. 40 

Reynolds, Geo. M., his opinion af¬ 
ter visiting Europe . 228 

Robinson Senator, on the League. 214 

Rockefeller, John D., . 231 

Rolph, Mayor of San Francisco . . 272 
Root, Elihu, quotation from, 5; 

amendments to League. 49 

Roosevelt, Theodore, on League, 

21 ; opinion after World War. 220 
Royden, Miss Maude, only woman 

preacher in England. 62 

Rulers follow example . 167 

£ 

Sainsbury, Dr. E. J., of England 269 

Saturday Evening Post. 112 

Seeley, Maj. General, England. . .306 
School books more truthful and 

peaceful in some nations. 240 

Schwimmer Rosika, many efforts 

for peace . 146 

Scott, Admiral’s opinion. 108 

Sen-Yat Sen Dr. of China. 272 

Serbia compared with Greece. . . . 289 

Shells, number to kill. 157 

Should court have teeth.282 

Sigourney, Lydia II., on fear.... 250 
Simms, a Washington correspond¬ 
ent, on Japanese students. 240 

Sims, Admiral, on battleships.... 109 
Silver, Horace P., on League.... 177 

Sinclair, J. F., French debt. 301 

Slavery and war compared...... 7 

Smith, Fred B., Christianity on 
trial. 134; what he knows from 
travel . 296 


Soderblum, Archbishop, for the . 
League and everything good... 1 *<j 


OF 

247 

221 

206 

116 

135 

278 

266 

289 

219 

102 

257 

168 

154 

253 

14 

284 

105 

148 

238 

287 

41 

140 

123 

272 

263 

213 

9 

88 

171 

29 

87 

98 

163 

182 

286 

214 

185 

261 

100 

179 

124 

96 

182 

276 






























































vi 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS—INDEX 


Spencer, Senator . 277 

Soldiers do as commanded, 117 ; 
should not be proud, 117 ; life 
defined, 252; next to Clergy.. 265 
Solomon, Dr. Alice sends message 
to U. S., and one to France. . . 204 


Spencer, Herbert’s Eigian. 265 

Spurr, F. C., at Stockholm. 191 

Sobae Senators want no court. . . . 282 
Southworth, Dr. Franklin C., 
opinion on the League of Na¬ 
tions . 308 

Stanfield, Theodore, letter . 191 

Stead, editor of London Times. . . 85 

State Journal, of Ohio.319 

Stewart, Miss Cora Wilson. 272 

Stoica, Captain, how killing ef¬ 
fects in war . 89 

Stone, Colonel David L., the Ger¬ 
man-French situation .210 

Stone, M. E., our responsibility.. 212 

Strauss, Oscar S., writes . 47 

Sun, New York.18, 96 

Sun, Pittsburgh, on Mexico. 133 

Sullivan explaining Harding. 37 

Supreme Issue . 297 

Sweden, best men for League.... 187 


T 

Taft, W. IT., best known peace 
man, 46; made speeches for it, 
45 ; said not a party issue. 52 ; 
his definition of a league, 53; 
speech to Wisconsin bar, 54; 
positions held by, 56; his re¬ 
ward, 59 ; reason for flop, 56; 


opinion of the League.20S 

Tarbell, Miss Ida, do women hate 

war . 74 

The important question. 271 

Tavenner, Hon. C. II., war trust. 152 

Teeth pr without .... 282 

Thomas, Dr. M. Cary, gives opin¬ 
ion after long visit abroad.... 190 
Thomas, Dr. John M., laments the 

sweep of pacifism . 246 

Times New York, Caraway’s letter 

describing trip abroad . 81 

Time for plain speaking. 11 

Treaties by Bryan and Root. 47 

Treaty of Versailles . 279 

Trego, J. H., to credit men. 196 

Tribune, Chicago .147. 262 

Tribune, New York on Wilson... 20 

The Turk, his religion. 166 

Turks killing Christians. 82 

Times-Star, Cincinnati, on war. . 258 

Traveler, Boston, quoted.250 

Thinking changed about war. . . . 245 
Two millions more women than 
men in England.,.. 62 


V 

Underwood, Senator, gives impres¬ 
sions after visit to Europe.... 183 
Upton, Mrs. Harriet T., says 
women insist on peace in plat¬ 
form . 183 

U. S. only civilized nation to re¬ 
ject League, 23; key to world 
peace .297 


V 

Yanderlip, Frank A., for peace. . 179 
Van Dyke, Dr. Henry, why U. S. 
is not a member of the League 179 

Verdicts fair and unfair. 12 

Versailles treaty .30, 58, 316 

Vices in peace, virtues in war... 158 

Villa, Francesco, on soldiers. 262 

Von Moltke, General, for war.... 113 
Von Seekt, Gen., military dictator 
of Germany is for war. 271 


W 

Walker, John II., writes and 

speaks for labor. 51 

Wallace, Sec. of Agriculture.... 258 

Walsh, Senator James J. 194 

War, is savagery, 97 ; inconsistent 
with religion, 125 ; what cost of 
navy would do, 168 ; an unne¬ 
cessary evil, 231 ; not the sol¬ 
dier detested, 231 ; fought by 
boys, 232; paid for by poster¬ 
ity, 232 ; suffered by women, 

232; on war basis. 251 ; war 
talk buncombe, 256; war bru¬ 
talizing, 262; who hates war 
most, 298; collective murder.. 297 

Ward, Prof. Lester F., . 64 

Washington Conference . 94 

Washington, George, his ability 
questioned, 51 ; wbat he never 
saw, 130 ; bath tubs, 131; party 

spirit . 132 

Weeks and Denby on junkets.... 119 
Weeks feels religious, 117 ; not 
surprising that men accepted 
his invitation, 121; resolution 
of his guests, 121 ; says he is 
ready for war, 123 ; Weeks and 
woman’s clubs, 123; who wants 


to fight us . 124 

Weekly News of New Zealand... 84 
Wellman, Walter, his opinion... 314 
Wells, H. G., what he wants.... 165 

West warns the East. 247 

What our navy has cost. 168 

Why students want peace. 245 


Wickersham. Geo. W., a promi¬ 
nent Republican for the League 46 














































THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS—INDEX 


vii 


Wigmore, Hon. John H. 212 

Willis, Senator, world court, 282 ; 

resolution in New'berry case. .. 283 
Will women vote as they t^ik. . . . 160 
Wilson, Woodrow, had reason to 
think League would pass, 18; 
what he had to overcome, 22; 
called Wilson League, 23; 
League made party issue, 229; 
prominent Republicans go over, 

59 ; too proud to fight, 125 ; his 
name will live, 320; his emi¬ 
nent qualifications, 322; Hous¬ 
ton's tribute to his memory.. . 322 
Winona Lake conference. 209 


Wood, Dr. Will C., gives advice.. 271 
Wooley, Mary E., civilization in 

danger . . . 213 

Women now citizens and for the 
League, 61; know a better way 
than war, 62; should distin¬ 
guish themselves, 65; do they 
hate war, 75; furnish food for 

powder ...232 

World, New York . 

. 122, 197, 204, 215, 295 

World’s Work,.37, 112, 291 

Z 

Zeisinger, E. E., of Akron, O. ... 190 










* 


f 

























































y 







I 


4 




V 




*V. 

A 


> 














































